2026:JHHC:10768 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.4066 of 2019 ------ Saluja Educational Trust, having house and Office at Saluja House, Netaji Chowk, P.O. and P.S. Giridih, through its Trustee Sardar Amarjit Singh Saluja, son of Late Daljit Singh Saluja, resident of Mauja Dhandaridih, Netaji Chowk, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, having its Office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District Ranchi. 2. Commissioner, North Chotanagpur, having Office at P.O. & P.S. Hazaribag, District Hazaribag. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, having its Office at P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 4. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Giridih, having its Office at P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih, having its Office at P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. 6. Circle Officer, Bengabad, P.O. & P.S. Giridih, District Giridih. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA-V Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, AC to GA-V ------ 09/ 15.04.2026 At the very outset, learned counsel representing the petitioner – Trust submits that in para-7 of the memo of writ petition and in corresponding portion of synopsis, he has wrongly mentioned that lands have been mutated in favour of the petitioner but in fact the mutation has not been done. The petitioner thus prays that the same be amended. Para-7 with proposed amendments, read as follows:- “7. That it is further stated that after the purchase of land, mutation application was filed by the present petitioner before the Office of Learned 2026:JHHC:10768 2 Circle Officer, Bengabad, on 26.12.2018 and later on the same was rejected.” 2. Prayer for carrying out the amendment is allowed. 3. The petitioner is directed to make necessary correction in the writ petition, in red ink, during course of the day. 4. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 5. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “for issuance of Writ(s) / Order(s) and / or Direction(s) particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 07.03.2013 (Annexure-8) passed by Learned Deputy Commissioner, Giridih whereby and where under Learned Authority exercising his power under Section 4h of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is pleased to cancel the Jamabandi running in the name of the Petitioner & his successor in interest in connection to Khata No.117, Plot No.4207, measuring an area of 51.60 acre within Circle Bengabad, Mouza Mahuwar, Thana 17G, on the basis of the recommendation made by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih, and SDO, Giridih, in miscellaneous Jamabandi cancellation case no. 14 / 12-13. AND The petitioner further prays for quashing of the recommendation dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure-7) whereby and where under the recommendation for cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioner was made by LRDC, Giridih and SDO, Giridih as the same is wholly without jurisdiction and suffers from foundational facts. AND 2026:JHHC:10768 3 For issuance of any other appropriate writ / order / direction restraining the respondent authorities from evicting the Petitioner from the suit property for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 6. Facts of this case in brief are as follows:- 6.1. The petitioner is a registered Trust. The petitioner – Trust is the purchaser of the lands in question vide two sale deeds. The said lands consist of area 6 acre and 4 acre 24 decimals respectively. The Sale Deeds were registered in the office of learned Sub Registrar, Giridih. 6.2. After purchase of the aforesaid lands, the petitioner – Trust filed mutation application before the office of learned Circle Officer, Bengabad, however, the same was rejected. 6.3. Thereafter the Authorities had initiated a proceeding being Misc. Case No.04/12-13, under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1950”). 6.4. The successor in interest of the original Settlees had submitted their reply / show cause in respect of plot No.420 along with the rent receipt and other documents. 6.5. The Circle Officer, Bengabad, upon consideration of the document, admitted that the land was settled with one Mangi Lal Jhunjhunwala by the Erstwhile Zamindar in the year 1945 equivalent to 1352 Fasli year. He also admitted that Jamabandi is continuing since long and the land is mutated in the name of different person by the order of competent Authorities. Further, in respect of plot No.4067, Jamabandi has been created in the Rent Assessment Case 2026:JHHC:10768 4 No.30/93-94 by the order of the competent Authority. As noticed above, the Circle Officer recommended for initiation of a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act of 1950. 6.6. Pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation made by the learned Circle Officer, Bengabad, the LRDC, Giridih, instituted a Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.14/12-13. The notices were issued to the predecessor in interest of the original Settlee on 24.08.2012. 6.7. The predecessor in interest of the original Settlee had filed their show cause. 6.8. After filing of the show cause, the petitioner – Trust came to know that the records have been transferred to the office of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, by LRDC, Giridih, recommending the cancellation of Jamabandi. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, vide order dated 07.03.2013, in exercise of his power under Section 4(h) of the Act of 1950, cancelled the Jamabandi on the recommendation of LRDC, Giridih. 7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner – Trust has assailed the aforesaid impugned order passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, on the ground that Section 4(h) of the Act of 1950, does not confer any power upon the Revenue Authority to cancel Jamabandi. He submits that the possession of the petitioner and its predecessor in interest is running for more than 70 years, hence the petitioner – Trust cannot be dispossessed from the property having possession of the same for more than 30 years, that too, when the settlement was of the year 1945. Learned counsel has taken the aid of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court in 2026:JHHC:10768 5 L.P.A. No.786 of 2018 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Izhar Hussain & Ors) and other analogues cases, wherein, according to him, the similar issue has been dealt with taking into consideration the fact that under Section 4 (h) of the Act of 1950, the Revenue Authority cannot exercise their power to cancel the Jamabandi. 7.1. It has been submitted that the aforesaid order has been challenged by the State of Jharkhand before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 8108 of 2021, but the same has been dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2021. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment dated 12.10.2022, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4216 of 2013 (M/s Jagdamba Educational Trust Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.). 7.2. In the aforesaid background of the factual aspect and the legal position, submission has been made that the order passed by the LRDC, Giridih, dated 11.01.2013, is nullity in the eye of law and hence the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. It has further been submitted that vide order dated 07.03.2013, the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, has cancelled the Jamabandi, which is also required to be quashed. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand, on the other hand, has defended the order passed by the LRDC, Giridih, dated 11.01.2013, passed in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.14 / 2012-13 and submits that the land in question, since, has been settled by way of Hukumnama of the year 1950, which, is after the cut-off date as has been stipulated in the provision of Section 4 (h) of the Act of 1950, i.e. 01.01.1946 and hence the LRDC, Giridih has 2026:JHHC:10768 6 considered the said aspect of the matter and taking into consideration the nature of land, which is Gairmazarua khas, has exercised the power conferred under Section 4 (h) of the Act of 1950, as no conclusive document has been produced by the original Settlee to make out a case of the valid title over the land in question. It has further been submitted that the Officer concerned has taken recourse of Section 4 (h) of the Act of 1950, for the reason, that the land has been tried to be transferred only in order to overreach the object and intent of the Act of 1950. 8.1. In the background of the aforesaid submission, the argument which has been advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner has been strictly objected with a submission to dismiss the writ petition. 9. After hearing the parties and perusing the finding recorded by the LRDC, Giridih and Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, in order to answer the issue, as to whether Section 4(h) of the Act of 1950, does confer any power to the Revenue Authority to cancel the Jamabandi, it is necessary to refer the provision of Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950, which reads hereunder as: “4(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 2026:JHHC:10768 7 State or obtaining higher compensation there under 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.]” 10. It would be evident from the object and intent of the Act of 1950 which has been enacted that the purpose of abolition of the intermediary system was to vest the land to the State. Reason being that, prior to 1950 the rent was being paid through the intermediary i.e. the landlord which was being paid by the raiyats and in order to abolish the intermediary system by way of enactment, the Bihar Land Reforms Act has been legislated. 10.1. Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950 is one of the provisions to achieve the object of the Act, 1950 inserted in the Statute. Section 4 (h) stipulates by conferring power to the Deputy Commissioner as per the Act of 1950 that if it comes to the notice of the concerned Deputy Commissioner that the land has been transferred only to frustrate the very object of the Act, 1950, then an enquiry is required to be conducted by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties 2026:JHHC:10768 8 concerned and thereafter if a conclusion has been arrived at and the land in question has been transferred only to overreach the object of the Act, the transfer is to be annulled. 10.2. It further appears from the Act that the aforesaid provision has not been made absolute, rather, cut off date has been inserted for conducting an enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner as per the Act, 1950 i.e. the enquiry is required to be conducted if the transfer has been made on or after 01.01.1946. 10.3. It has further been provided under the aforesaid provision that the Deputy Commissioner as per the Act, 1950, if comes to the conclusive finding about overreaching of the provision of the Act, 1950 then a due recommendation is to be made for annulling the transfer. 11. The State Government, acting upon the said recommendation is to affirm such annulment and it is only then the land in question will be said to be vested in the State. It is, thus, evident that Section 4 (h) confers power to the Deputy Commissioner for annulling the transfer. 12. There is no dispute in the two words i.e. transfer and Jamabandi. The transfer means transferring a land from one person to another, whereas, the Jamabandi means that once the land has been transferred in favour of a party for the purpose of making payment of rent, a Jamabandi is required to be created and after creation of Jamabandi, the name is required to be entered into the revenue register i.e. Register-II so as to make payment of rent to the State exchequer. Meaning thereby, the transfer and Jamabandi 2026:JHHC:10768 9 cannot be construed to be synonyms. The land if transferred by a party in favour of the third party, in that circumstance, Jamabandi will remain with a party but the process is to be resorted by making necessary correction in Register-II by making an application before the concerned Circle Officer which will be for the purpose of making payment of rent by the third party in whose favour the land has been transferred by the party. 13. Here in the given facts of the case, it is admitted case, that by virtue of order impugned dated 11.01.2013, the Jamabandi has been recommended to be cancelled in exercise of power conferred under Section 4 (h) of the Act of 1950, and further cancelled vide order dated 07.03.2013. The question arises that when the provision of Section 4 (h) does not confer power to the Revenue Authority to undertake an exercise for cancellation of Jamabandi under the provision of Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950 then under what authority of law the Circle Officer, Bengabad, initiated the proceeding in Misc. Case no.04 of 2012-13, and under what authority, the LRDC, Giridih, in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.14 / 2012-13, has recommended to cancel the Jamabandi. 14. The position of law is well settled that any Authority if conferred with a power, is required to exercise such power under the mandates of the Statute and if power is not vested upon an Authority and even then, if the action is being taken, the same is said to have been suffered from jurisdictional error. It is further settled position of law that if any decision has been taken by any Authority not having competency to take such decision, the said decision is nullity in the 2026:JHHC:10768 10 eye of law. 15. The issue of jurisdictional error has well been considered by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.786 of 2018, wherein the Act of 1950 has been considered in its entirety by taking aid of the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990(1) PLJR 170, Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 165 and the judgment rendered in the case of Brighu Nath Sahay Singh & Ors. Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahamn & Ors. reported in (1996) 1 PLJR (SC) 65. For ready reference, para-16 of the aforesaid judgment is required to be referred herein, which reads as follows:- “16. This Court, in order to adjudicate this legal issue deem it fit and proper to go across the preamble of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which says that for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders in land and of the mortgagees and lessees of such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, hats, bazars, mines and minerals and to provide for the constitution of a Land Commission for the State of Bihar with powers to advise the State Government on the agrarian policy to be pursued by the State Government consequent upon such transference and for other matters connected therewith. The intention behind the proviso to provide for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure holders in land and of mortgagees and lessees of such interests as enshrined in the directive principles of our Constitution of India under Articles 39 (B) and 39(C). 2026:JHHC:10768 11 Section 4 of the Act, 1950 provides consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Subsection 4(b) thereof says that all rents, cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate or tenure on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the outgoing proprietor or tenure-holder and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be binding on the State Government. Sub- section 4 (h) provides power upon the Collector 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 1st 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 17 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 and further provided 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. It is, thus, evident that Section 4(h) confers power upon the Collector to effect any transfer if such transfer is found to be for the purpose of 2026:JHHC:10768 12 frustrating the intent and purport of the Act in respect of transfer made any time after 1st January, 1946. The issue pertaining to applicability of provision of Section 4 (h) fell for consideration before Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 170, wherein it has been laid down to the effect that recourse for cancellation of Jamabandi under the Sections can be taken only where any estate or tenure or any part thereof vests in 18 the State. Section 4(h) clothes the Collector with jurisdiction to make enquiries in respect of transfers made any time after 1st January, 1946. Further, in the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 165, it has been held that annulment of settlement made in 1945 on the assumption that it was made within the family to deprive the valuable land is mere presumption. On a plain reading of the provision it is obvious that the Collector while exercising power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer must be satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after 1st January, 1946. No finding recorded that the transfer was made after 1st January, 1946. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector being an adjudicating body could not recommend for such annulment and had to arrive at his own conclusions in terms of Section 4(h) of the Act.” 16. Further question which is also required to be considered by this Court is whether long running Jamabandi can be allowed to be cancelled by the Revenue Authority or not. The law has been settled in that regard also by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramayan Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported 2026:JHHC:10768 13 in (2013) 3 PLJR 533, wherein, it has been held that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save an except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. 16.1. Further the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Chanchala Devi passed in L.P.A. No.142 of 2010 along with L.P.A. No.307 of 2009, has also been pleased to hold that if the State Government is claiming ownership upon the property in question, which is in possession of the tenant/raiyat and his/her predecessors-in-title, civil suit is the only remedy available with the State Government. 17. Here also in the facts and circumstances of the case, as would appear from the record that the settlement was made in the year 1945 and after vesting of the same, rent receipt was issued by the State in the year 1954 and the steps have been taken for its cancellation by initiating a proceeding in the year 2012 and as such it cannot be disputed that the possession after settlement in the instant case is about 70 years. 18. This Court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1256 of 2019 (Antardhari Sao Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), (decided on 19.02.2024), while dealing with the issue of conferring power to initiate proceeding after 60 years, under Section 4 (h) of the Act of 1950, has held the same to be an abuse of law. Para-21 and 22 of the order dated 19.02.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.1256 of 2019 is quoted hereinbelow:- “21. In this case, the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 has been initiated after 69 years from the date of promulgation of the Act. This is a 2026:JHHC:10768 14 very long period which by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be a reasonable period to initiate the proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Further a suit for recovery of possession and declaration of title will also be barred in view of the Limitation Act as 69 years have lapsed. When a remedy is barred under the Limitation Act, the said remedy cannot be availed by taking recourse to a Statute where limitation has not been prescribed. 22. Thus even if the Additional Collector has power to issue any notice under the Act, he does not have power to initiate a proceeding after more than 60 years. Initiating the proceeding after 60 years in this case is absolutely an abuse of law. Thus, the entire proceeding initiated by the impugned notice under section 4(h) is set aside.” 19. This Court, on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A. No.786 of 2018, which has been declined to be interfered with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 8108 of 2021 vide order dated 06.07.2021, is not hesitant in holding that the order passed by the LRDC, Giridih, vide order dated 11.01.2013 in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.14 / 2012-13 suffers from the jurisdictional error and as such, is nullity in the eye of law. 20. Accordingly, the order dated 11.01.2013 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the LRDC, Giridih, whereby recommendation for cancellation of Jamabandi had been made, is quashed and set aside. 20.1. In consequence thereof, the order dated 07.03.2013 2026:JHHC:10768 15 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), passed by Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, by which the Jamabandi was cancelled, is also quashed and set aside. 20.2. However, the State is at liberty to file suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance, if the State so wishes. 21. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 15th April, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 AFR Uploaded on 30.04.2026