Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:30684 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 1246 of 2025 --- Lalan Pandey, son of Late Devdhari Pandey, aged about 78 years, resident of Bhodsa, P.O. Balun, P.S. Siwan, District Balun, Bihar 841244 through his Power of Attorney Holder Umesh Jain, son of Sriram Jain, aged about 48 years, resident of quarter no. C/38, City Centre, Sector-4, P.O. Sector, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Department of Registration, Revenue and Land Reforms, officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, officiating from his office at O/o Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, P.O & P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro 3. Circle Officer, Chas, officiating from his office at O/o Circle Officer, Chas, P.O & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro --- --- Respondents With W.P (C) No. 4967 of 2024 --- Umesh Jain, aged about 47 years, son of Sri Ram Jain @ Ram Jain, resident of Plot No. 139, Co-operative Colony, P.O and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro, Jharkhand --- --- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Land and Reforms, having its his office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro Collectorate, Camp-II, Bokaro, P.O and P.S. Bokaro, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 3. The Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro, P.O and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro 4. The Range Forest Officer, Chas, P.O & P.S. Chas, District Bokaro, Jharkhand --- --- Respondents --- For the Petitioners: Mr. Prashant Pallav & Ms. Shivani Jhaluka, Advocates [WPC1246/2025] Mr. Ramakant Tiwary, Advocate [WPC 4967/2025] For the State: Mr. Deepanker, A.C to A.G --- PRESENT Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath --- Reserved on: 11.07.2025 Pronounced on: 26 .09.2025 --- Ambuj Nath, J: Both these writ applications are related to the same question of facts and law and the issues involved are the same, accordingly, both these writ applications are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Petitioner Lalan Pandey in W.P (C) No. 1246 of 2025, through his power of attorney holder Umesh Jain, has filed this writ application for issuing direction upon the Respondents to immediately remove the land situated at Mouza 2 Narayanpur, P.S. Pindrajora, District Bokaro, Khata No. 317, Plot No. 3589 admeasuring an area of 2.00 acres and 83 decimals from the ‘prohibited list’ in NGDRS as the land in question was transferable in nature and is owned and possessed by the petitioner having marketable title. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the notice dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-4) issued by the Respondent No. 3-Circle Officer, Chas and the entire proceedings in Miscellaneous 4(h) Case No. 39 of 2023-24 which has been initiated by the Respondent Authorities under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as the same has been initiated after a period of 88 years from the date of initial settlement. Petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the notice dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-6) issued by the Respondent No. 3-Circle Officer, Chas and the entire proceedings in Case No. 4 of 2024-25, which has been initiated by the Respondent Authorities under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, as the issue pertaining to the right, title and interest of the petitioner with respect to the Scheduled Property, which was settled in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor-in- interest in the year 1936, cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 58 dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-7) issued by the Respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, whereby and wherein, it has been directed that till the adjudication of Miscellaneous 4(h) Case No. 39 of 2023-24 and Case No. 4 of 2024-25, status quo be maintained upon the Scheduled Property. It has further been prayed to quash the entire proceedings of Misc. 4(h) Case No. 1 of 2025 initiated by the Respondent No. 2 under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as the same has been initiated after a period of 88 years from the date of initial settlement. It has finally been prayed for stay of the operation of the order contained in Memo No. 58 dated 09.01.2025 and the proceedings in Miscellaneous 4(h) Case No. 39 of 2023-24 and Case No. 4 of 2024-25 till the adjudication of this writ application. 3. Petitioner-Umesh Jain in W.P (C) No. 4967 of 2024 has prayed for quashing of the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3- Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro in B.P.L.E. Case No. 19 of 2023 (Annexure-4), whereby the Respondent No. 3 has declared the petitioner as encroacher of 05 decimals forest land appertaining to Plot No. 3589. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction commanding upon the Respondents to restrain them from executing the order 01.08.2024, passed by the Respondent No. 3- Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest 3 Division, Bokaro in B.P.L.E. Case No. 19 of 2023, which was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo No. 1627 dated 03.08.2024, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the land within two weeks by removing the boundary wall and other constructions made in Plot No. 3589, area 05 decimals, treating the land as the protected forest vide Notification No. C/F-17014/58-1429R dated 24.05.1958. 4. Case of the petitioners is that the land situated at Mouza Narayanpur, P.S. Pindrajora, District Bokaro appertaining to Khata No. 317, Plot No. 3589 admeasuring an area of 2 acres and 83 decimals (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Scheduled Property’) along with other lands, was recorded in the name of Khelu Mahto in the Khatiyan. The grandsons of Khelu Mahto namely Fhagu Mahto, Baijnath Mahto and Manu Mahto settled the Scheduled Property in the name of Kamla Mahtain by Sada Hukumnama which was executed in the year 1936. After the settlement of the Scheduled Property in the name of Kamla Mahtain, the Scheduled Property remained in peaceful possession of Kamla Mahtain. Thereafter, by registered sale deed no. 5183 dated 05.01.1983, legal heirs of Kamla Mahtain sold the land situated at Mouza Narayanpur, P.S. Pindrajora, District Bokaro appertaining to Khata No. 317, Plot No. 3589 admeasuring an area of 16 acres and 82 decimals to several persons including the petitioner Lalan Pandey, out of which, share of the petitioner Lalan Pandey is 02 acres and 83 decimals. The Scheduled Property was mutated in the name of the petitioner Lalan Pandey vide order passed in Mutation Case No. 645/VII/2015-16 and rent receipts were issued in his name till 2024. The petitioner Lalan Pandey claims to be in peaceful possession of the Scheduled Property since 1983. The petitioner Lalan Pandey had executed a Power of Attorney in the name of the petitioner Umesh Jain vide registered deed no. 1-3235/2024 dated 02.07.2024 for the purpose of taking care of the Scheduled Property and to take appropriate steps to sell of the Scheduled Property. The Respondent No. 3-Circle Officer, Chas issued a notice dated 12.12.2024 to the petitioner Lalan Pandey, wherein the petitioner Lalan Pandey came to know that a Miscellaneous 4(h) Case No. 39 of 2023-24 has been initiated against him. As per the notice, he was informed that Jamabandi created in the name of the petitioner Lalan Pandey has been found to be suspicious and therefore, the petitioner Lalan Pandey was directed to appear before the Respondent No. 3-Circle Officer, Chas along with all the documents relating to the Scheduled Property on 10.01.2025. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 3-Circle Officer, Chas again issued a letter contained in Memo No. 22 dated 03.01.2025 to the petitioner Umesh Jain, Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner Lalan 4 Pandey, wherein he was asked to stop all the construction works on the Scheduled Property until measurement of the Scheduled Property was carried out. In the meantime, another notice dated 08.01.2025 was issued by the Respondent No. 3- Circle Officer, Chas under section 3 of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 to the petitioner Umesh Jain, Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner Lalan Pandey, wherein he was directed to appear on 17.01.2025 and show-cause as to why encroachment i.e. the construction work being carried out should not be removed. According to the petitioners, in the said notice, Scheduled Property has been mentioned as public land. 5. It is further case of the petitioners that the Respondent No. 2 with premeditated mindset has passed ex-parte order of status quo on 09.01.2025 (Annexure-7). Petitioners have also come to know that the Scheduled Property has been included in the NGDRS list, wherein it has been shown as ‘Restricted’. 6. It was submitted that the Scheduled Property was recorded in the Khatiyan in the name of Khelu Mahto. It was further submitted that the grandsons of Khelu Mahto namely Fhagu Mahto, Baijnath Mahto and Manu Mahto settled the Scheduled Property in the name of Kamla Mahtain by Sada Hukumnama in 1936 i.e. prior to 01.01.1946. It was submitted that as per Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, Collector has been vested with the power to conduct inquiry in respect of the transfers made after 01.01.1946. In the instant case, Hukumnama was executed in the name of Kamla Mahtain in the year 1936 and therefore, any proceeding under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 cannot be initiated by the Respondent Authorities. It was submitted that the Respondents have filed Civil Suit before the appropriate Civil Court for declaration of their right, title and interest over the Scheduled Property. In light of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted that the action of the Respondents is patently illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, it was prayed that the entire proceedings of Miscellaneous 4(h) case No. 39 of 2023-24 including notice dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-4), entire proceedings of Case No. 4 of 2024-25 including notice 08.01.2025 (Annexure-6), order contained in Memo No. 58 dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-7) and the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3- Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro in B.P.L.E. Case No. 19 of 2023 (Annexure-4), be quashed. 7. Reliance has been placed upon the judgement rendered by this court in the case of Izhar Hussain versus State of Jharkhand and others in W.P (C) No. 593 of 2017. Reliance has also been placed upon a decision of Patna High 5 Court in the case of Laxman Sahni Versus State of Bihar and others [1990 (1) BLJR 701]. 8. Respondents have appeared and filed contesting counter affidavit. It has been stated that Encroachment Case No. 4/2024-25 was initiated by the Circle Officer, Chas as the petitioners have encroached upon the Government land which has been mentioned as Gairabad Malik in the revenue records. It has also been stated that during the course of hearing in the B.P.L.E proceeding, petitioners have admitted that they have encroached upon the land in question which is adjacent to the protected forest land and they have inadvertently encroached upon the same. It has also been stated that the entry made in the revenue records was illegal as the land was recorded as Gairabad Malik (Jungle Jhad). In view of the wrong entry made in the revenue records, necessary steps have been taken to initiate departmental proceeding against the erring officials. On these grounds, it was prayed that the writ applications be dismissed. 9. Petitioners have filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, in which it has been mentioned that Respondents have also filed civil suit before the Civil Court, Bokaro for declaration of right, title and interest over the Scheduled Property and when civil suit is pending with regard to the Scheduled Property, the entire proceeding under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, is entirely malicious. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Asha Devi Versus State of Jharkhand and others in L.P.A. No. 528 of 2024, wherein it has been held that the Government Official cannot immediately decide the title of the Government as it violates the basic principle of natural justice that “one cannot be a judge in his own cause”. 10. From perusal of the sale deed by virtue of which petitioner Lalan Pandey is alleged to have purchased the aforesaid land, it appears that the vendors of the petitioner Lalan Pandey, Shiv Prasad Mahto and others are legal heirs of Kamla Mahtain in whose favour the scheduled property was settled by Manu Mahto having intermediary right to settle the scheduled property in 1936. The name of the vendors of the petitioner Lalan Pandey and his predecessor-in-interest was recorded in the revenue records and they were paying rent to the State Government. After the petitioner Lalan Pandey had purchased the land, his name was also recorded in the revenue records and the State Government starting realizing rent from him. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit, but they have not specifically denied these facts. It has been stated that by manufacturing 6 forged documents, petitioner Lalan Pandey and his predecessors-in-interest have managed to get their names entered in the revenue records and subsequently, notice was issued and miscellaneous case was instituted for cancelling the Jamabandi of the petitioner Lalan Pandey. Petitioners have further stated that the Respondents have filed a suit for declaration of their right, title and interest over the scheduled property before the competent Civil Court. This fact has also not been denied by the Respondents. 11. It is the case of the petitioner Lalan Pandey that the name of his predecessor-in-interest namely Kamla Mahtain was entered into the revenue records in the year 1936. The legal heirs of Kamla Mahtain sold the land to different persons in the year 1983 and the purchaser got their name mutated in the revenue records. As per section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the Collector has the power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutcherry for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State, he may, after giving notice to such transferee, annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it and take possession of such property. For ready reference, section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is quoted hereunder: “[(h) The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof, [* * *] and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made [at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard [* * *] annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable:] Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure: Provided further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government.” 12. In the case of The State of Jharkhand Versus Izhar Hussain [L.P.A. No. 786 of 2018], a Division Bench of this Court has framed one of 7 the legal issues as to whether Jamabandi created in favour of any raiyat can be cancelled under the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and, after referring the relevant provisions of the Act of 1950, has held as under: “19. --------The question would be that in absence of any power conferred by Statute upon any of the revenue authority can Jamabandi be cancelled. The answer of this question would be in negative as statute confers power upon the authority and the authority can purportedly exercise the power conferred upon it under the statutory power and if any decision is taken in absence of any provision the same would be said to be nullity in the eye of law when found to be without jurisdiction. It is further settled that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction”. 13. Further case of the petitioner Lalan Pandey is that the scheduled property was transferred in favour of Kamla Mahtain, his predecessor-in- interest in 1936 itself, which is much prior to 1.1.1946 and this fact has not been refuted by the Respondents. Therefore, the Collector has no power to cancel the Jamabandi of the petitioner Lalan Pandey. The only option left to the State was to file a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction for declaration of their right, title and interest. It is also pertinent to mention that the names of the petitioner Lalan Pandey and his predecessors in interest were entered in revenue records by officers of revenue department of the state while discharging their official duty. There is presumption in favour of the petitioner Lalan Pandey that the official acts have been regularly performed as per the provisions of illustration (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. These entries can be declared to be illegal only by a competent civil court. The respondents cannot initiate proceedings to set aside these entries as it is barred by provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is apparent that when the mater is sub- judice before the court of civil jurisdiction, Respondents have exceeded their brief by initiating proceeding for cancelling the Jamabandi of the petitioner by issuing notice dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-4) in Miscellaneous 4(h) Case No. 39 of 2023-24 and also by initiating a proceeding in Case No. 4 of 2024-25 for removing the alleged encroachment carried out by the petitioner Umesh 8 Jain, Power of Attorney Holder of the petitioner Lalan Pandey from the scheduled land. 15. 15. Accordingly, as the matter is sub-judice, the Respondent cannot decide their right, title and interest over the scheduled land themselves. Any quasi-judicial proceeding initiated by them is against the principles of natural justice and is void abinitio. Accordingly, the notice dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure-4), notice dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-6), both issued by the Respondent No. 3-Circle Officer, Chas, order contained in Memo No. 58 dated 09.01.2025 (Annexure-7) issued by the Respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro as well as the entire proceedings in Miscellaneous 4(h) Case No. 39 of 2023-24, Case No. 4 of 2024-25 and Misc. 4(h) Case No. 1 of 2025 as also the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3- Collector-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Forest Division, Bokaro in B.P.L.E. Case No. 19 of 2023 (Annexure-4), are quashed. Consequently, the Respondent No. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro is directed to ensure that the land of the petitioner Lalan Pandey, as mentioned in para-1 of this order, is removed from the prohibited list of NGDRS within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 16. These writ applications are allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ambuj Nath, J) September 26, 2025 Ranjeet/