IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17969 of 2022 ====================================================== 1. Bijeshwar Ram Son of Late Raghunath Ram, resident of Village-Deepnagar, Post Office and Police Station-Deepnagar, Nongawan, District-Nalanda- 803111, Bihar. 2. Udaychand Ram, son of Bijeshwar Ram, resident of Village-Deepnagar, Post Office and Police Station-Deepnagar, Nongawan, District-Nalanda-803111, Bihar. 3. Binod Ram, son of Bijeshwar Ram, resident of Village-Deepnagar, Post Office and Police Station-Deepnagar, Nongawan, District-Nalanda-803111, Bihar. 4. Pramod Ram @ Pramod Kumar, son of Bijeshwar Ram, resident of Village- Deepnagar, Post Office and Police Station-Deepnagar, Nongawan, District- Nalanda-803111, Bihar. 5. Subodh Ram @ Subodh Prasad, son of Bijeshwar Ram, resident of Village- Deepnagar, Post Office and Police Station-Deepnagar, Nongawan, District- Nalanda-803111, Bihar. 6. Lalan Kumar, son of Bijeshwar Ram, resident of Village-Deepnagar, Post Office and Police Station-Deepnagar, Nongawan, District-Nalanda-803111, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 4. The Additional Collector, Nalanda, Biharsharif. 5. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Daudnagar, Aurangabad. 6. The Circle Offier, Biharsharif, Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan (Sc25) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 24-03-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SC-25. Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 2/12 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.2 to 6 are sons of petitioner no.1, their common ancestor was Late Raghunath Ram, Late Raghunath Ram had three sons, namely, Phulchand Ram, Premchand Ram and Bijeshwar Ram, Phulchand Ram was the karta of the family, hence all the landed properties were standing in his name. It is next submitted that the land pertaining to Khata No.132, Khesra No.1241, Thana No.93, Area 18 acres 75 decimals at village Lakhranwa was settled in favour of Phulchand Ram through a Hukumnama dated 15.06.1942 (Annexure-1 series) by the ex- landlord Shri Raj Kishore Prasad Narain Singh on an annual rent of Rs.31.14 annas including cess on permanent basis. It is next submitted that on vesting of zamindari i.e. after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the ex-landlord submitted his return in the name of Phulchand Ram to the State, thereafter the State of Bihar started realizing rent from the ancestor of the petitioner no.2 to 6 and in lieu thereof rent receipts were issued. 3. It is further submitted that Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.10/2017 relates to the land aforesaid and the petitioners have inherited the land from their ancestors by virtue of a compromise decree in T.S. No.126/ 1972, as such, the instant Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 3/12 writ application has been filed challenging the initiation of Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.10/2017 on the ground that long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding and also on the ground that the notice issued to the petitioners in respect of Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.10/2017 is in complete breach of Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. 4. It is submitted that initially the Jamabandi was opened in the serista of ex-landlord in the year 1948-49 and after vesting of zamindari, Jamabandi was created in the name of Phulchand Ram being Jamabandi No.98. It is next submitted that the land was measured in the year 1970 by a Government Amin and the petitioners were found in peaceful possession of the land, it is submitted that after the judgment and decree in T.S. No.126/1972, whereby partition took place amongst the member of the joint family and on partition, the rent started being paid by the petitioners with regard to the land in dispute as would manifest from Annexure-2 to the writ application. 5. It is next submitted that the name of the petitioners has also been entered in Register-II. It is next submitted that the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, issued letter no. 5-PR/R.C.1073/693-L.R. Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 4/12 dated 08.10.1969 to all the Collectors of the State along with letter no. 3354/IRFB-744/1959 dated 25.04.1959 addressed to all the Divisional Commissioners of the State recording therein that new jamabandi created till the year 1959 on the basis of sada Hukumnana and the rent receipts granted by the ex- intermediaries approved by the Circle Officer but opened by the karmchari was within the competence of the Circle Officer. It is submitted that it was thereafter that the name of Phulchand Ram was entered in Register-II (Annexure-3) being karta of the family. 6. The learned counsel further submits that either the petitioners or the ancestors had dispute with one Lachhu Mahto of Nabi Nagar who had set up his relation Basudeo Prasad with petitioner no.1 to claim some land belonging to the ancestors of the petitioners including the land in dispute and the said Basudeo Prasad took the Circle Officer in collusion and made some interpolation in Register-II and got rent receipt issued with regard to 29 acres 66 decimals of land in his name and 3 acres in his father’s name. The ancestors of the petitioners on coming to know about the said misdeeds filed an application before the Circle Officer for making correction in Register-II, the Circle Officer passed order for correction in Register-II but the order of Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 5/12 the Circle Officer was set aside by the L.R.D.C., it is next submitted that the order of the L.R.D.C. was challenged before the Additional Collector by the ancestors of the petitioners and accordingly, the order of the L.R.D.C. was set aside by the Additional Collector by his order dated 26.06.1978 (Annexure- 4) and the order of the Additional Collector was affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna by his order dated 25.07.1978 (Annexure-5). 7. It is further submitted that after partition in the family of the petitioners, separate jamabandis were opened in the name of petitioner no.1 to 6 in the year 1972-73. The petitioner no.1 carries Jamabandi No.313, area .92 decimals, petitioner no.2 carries Jamabandi No.326, area .92 decimals, petitioner no.3 carries Jamabandi No.325, area .86 decimal, similarly petitioner no.4 and 5 have Jamabandi No.315 and 327, area .86 decimal and 1.05 acres respectively with regard to Khata No.132, Plot No. 1241 as would manifest from Annexure- 6 series to the writ application. It is further submitted that a dispute arose between the petitioners and Ramchandra Sao, as Ramchandra Sao tried to remove sand from Khata No.132 of the petitioners, which led to filing of cases between them and the Mining Department, Bihar and the case ultimately travelled up Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 6/12 to this Court and this Court passed an order that lease in respect of the ancestors of the petitioners pertaining to Plot No.1241 by Mining Department for mining operation of sand over the same would be without prejudice to the right of the ancestors of the petitioners, as such the ancestors of the petitioners and petitioners are coming in possession of the land in question for several years. 8. 8. It is next submitted that the State government in the year 1988 issued notification no.3/88 dated 30.03.1988, which was published in the District Gazette, whereby the land in dispute and other lands of the petitioners were proposed to be acquired, petitioner no.1 and his brother filed CWJC No.4170/1988 before this Court and this Court by an order dated 08.06.1988 passed an order of status quo and further by an order dated 14.07.1988 (Annexure-7) stayed the acquisition proceedings, hence the aforesaid notification was withdrawn by notification no.730 dated 12.04.1991 by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, as such, the petitioners remained in possession of the land. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the facts recorded hereinabove, it would manifest that the petitioners are descendants of Late Raghunath Ram and Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 7/12 petitioner no.2 to 6 are sons of Bijeshwar Ram and Bijeshwar Ram was own younger brother of Phulchand Ram, in whose favour the land in dispute along with other lands was settled by a Hukumnama of the year 1942 and after vesting of zamindari, the landlord submitted the returns with respect to the land including the land in dispute in the name of Phulchand Ram and thereafter Jamabandi No.98 was created with respect to the land settled by the Hukumnama in favour of Phulchand Ram. It is next submitted that the land in dispute in a partition suit came in share of Bijeshwar Ram, who is own brother of Phulchand Ram and later the land in dispute was partitioned amongst the family members i.e the petitioners in the year 1972-73 i.e. after the judgment and decree in Partition suit and accordingly, jamabandis were created for which rent receipts were issued. It is submitted that in sum and substance what the petitioners are trying to arrive at is that the jamabandi opened in the name of petitioners enmates from the jamabandi which was created in the name of Phulchand Ram in the year 1948-49 and the separate Jamabandi with respect to the land in dispute in the name of petitioners is also standing in their name for the last more than 50 years, as such, the jamabandis are long standing jamabandi. Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 8/12 10. It is further submitted that in the year 2017, the State Government proposed to set up Neera factory, as such, the Circle Officer (respondent no.6), Biharsharif vide his letter no.246 dated 31.01.2017 (Annexure-8) recommended for cancellation of Jamabandi standing in the name of petitioners to the Additional Collector, Biharsharif, accordingly, the Additional Collector, Biharsharif instituted Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.10/2017 and issued separate notice to the petitioners as contained in Annexure-9 series asking the petitioners to appear on 28.02.2017, which are impugned in the present writ petition. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of Annexure-9 series to the writ application i.e. notice issued by the Additional Collector, Biharsharif in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.10/2017, it would manifest that the notices have been issued in complete breach of Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 as the notice does not incorporate the law or the executive instructions which were violated when the Jamabandis were created. The learned counsel for the petitioners next relies on a judgment of this Court reported in 2014(2) PLJR 66 (Ramnandan Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & Others) and also relies on the case of Jagarnath Jha Vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 9/12 the State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2023 (4) PLJR 565 to submit that this Court had held that if State is disputing long standing jamabandi the only option left to the State is to approach a Court of competent Civil jurisdiction for seeking appropriate relief. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.3 to 6, wherein a plea has been taken that the land in dispute for which Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.10/2017 has been instituted in the Khatiyan has been recorded as Gair Majarua Aam river, as such, the petitioners had no authority to settle some portion of the land in favour of Hari Construction and Associate Private Limited by way of a lease agreement dated 05.11.2022. It is further submitted placing reliance of Para-7 of the counter affidavit that the land appertaining to Khata No.132, Khesra No.1241, area 40.55 acres situated at Mauza-Lakhrawan, Thana No.93 is recorded as Gair Majarua Aam Panchane river, out of which the petitioners leased out an area of 1.5 acres in favour of Hari Enterprises Construction and on strength of the lease, the construction company started for filling soil over the land in question to make it suitable for implementation of construction work for Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 10/12 which the petitioners were noticed vide Memo No.3454 dated 03.11.2022 issued by the Circle Officer, Biharsharif asking the petitioners to explain that as to on what basis the land has been leased in favour of Hari Enterprises and were also asked to come with the documents in support of their case. Further, since the land in Khatiyan has been recorded as Gair Majarua Aam in the nature of Panchane river as such a proposal was sent to the Additional Collector, Nalanda for cancellation of Jamabandi related to the land in question vide letter no.246 dated 31.01.2017, accordingly, notices were issued by the Additional Collector in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.10/2017. 13. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court comes to a considered conclusion that the State is not disputing the Hukumnama, by which the land was settled in favour of Phulchand Ram nor the State is disputing the creation of Jamabandi 98 in the name of Phulchand Ram nor the State disputes the creation of Jamabandi in the name of the petitioners. Further, the State is accepting rent of the land from the petitioners, further, specific pleadings made in the writ application with regard to notification issued for notifying the land and its subsequent withdrawal has also not been denied nor the pleadings made at para-13 of the writ application with Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 11/12 respect to the letter issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms that Jamabandi created up till 1959 based on sada Hukumnana, for which, Circle Officers were competent has also not been denied. It also manifests that the notice issued under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 to the petitioners is also in complete breach of Section 9 of the Mutation Act, as the notice does not even remotely suggest that as to which law or executive instructions were violated when the Jamabandis were created in favour of the petitioners. Further, the Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding and in the instant case though the jamabandi created in the name of the petitioners was created in the year 1972-73 but then the said jamabandi enmates from Jamabandi No.98, which was created in the year 1948-49, accordingly, Annexure-9 series to the writ application, by which, notices have been issued to the petitioners in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.10/2017 are hereby quashed. 14. The writ application is allowed. 15. 14. The writ application is allowed. 15. However, it is made clear that this will not preclude the State from approaching a Court of competent civil Patna High Court CWJC No.17969 of 2022(3) dt.24-03-2025 12/12 jurisdiction for getting appropriate relief in accordance with law. amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U