2026:JHHC:9929 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5608 of 2022 …… Harendra Nath Kewat S/o Late Jageshwar Nath Kewat aged about 85 years, R/o Village-Kewatpara, Tin Bazar, P.O. and P.S.-Dumka, Dist.-Dumka. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Commissioner, Sathal Pargana Division, officiating from his office at O/o of the Ld. Commissioner, (SP) Division, P.O. and P.S., Dist- Dumka. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, officiating from his office at O/o of Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. and P.S., Dist.-Dumka. …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parth Jalan, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Mohan Dubey, A.C. to A.G. …… 10/12.03.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The relief sought by the petitioner is reproduced as under:-  For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction (s) for quashing of the order dated 20th of April 2022 in RMR 237 of 18-19 (Annexure-7), wherein Respondent No. 1 has been pleased to direct the demolition of all structures over Plot No. 1120 and further cancel the mutation of the name of Bhagwania Khewatin; the predecessor- in-interest of the Petitioner and enter the land in the Anaabad Khata as the same is perverse, illegal and without any jurisdiction;  For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 3rd of June, 2014 passed in RMP Case No. 2 of 2012-13, (Annexure-4) wherein it has been stated that any document for transfer of within Plot No. 1120 should not be accepted, as the same is entirely illegal and without jurisdiction.  For the issuance of an appropriate writ (s), orders) or direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 28th of July 2015 passed in RMP Case No. 2 of 2012-13, (Annexure-5) wherein the case being RMP Case No. 2 of 2012-13 was adjourned with respect to the land marked as 2026:JHHC:9929 2 Plot No, 1120, despite the fact that the WP(C) 1305 of 2014 was with respect to Plot No. 1121 and as such the same is perverse and passed in a routine and mechanical manner.  For the issuance of such other writ (s), order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may think just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased the property falling within Mouza- Kuruwachak ragunath Ganj No. 5/9 in the Anchal-Dumka, Thana-Dumka Nagar, appertaining to Plot No. 1120 admeasuring an area of 1 Acre, 3 decimals and 2/3 dhurs for a consideration of ₹ 18,700/- (INR Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred Only) vide registered sale deed dated 2.5.1997 from one Bhagwantia Keotin. The property of the petitioner is part of a larger property admeasuring a total of 4 bighas 7 decimal and 3 dhurs which stood recorded in the record of right in the name of one Shafali Bala Dey. After the settlement of the land in the favour of Shafali Bala Dey, rent receipts were issued in her name pursuant to the case being jamabandi no. 63/10. A part of the property admeasuring an area of 3 Acre and 10 decimals was sold to one Bhagwania Keotin vide registered sale deed dated 12.4.1972 for a consideration of ₹ 4,000/- (INR Four Thousand Only). A mutation case, being Mutation Case no. 2026:JHHC:9929 3 54 of 1972-73, was initiated by Bhagwania Keotin. The same was allowed vide the order dated 30.1.1973. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to a report dated the Circle Officer, wherein it is clearly stated that the name of Shafali Bala Dey, is recorded as a tenant. The report further states that the possession of the land is with Bhagwania Keotin and there was no objection from the 16 anna raiyat if mutation is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that after mutation, Bhagwanti Keotin filed an application before the Settlement Officer, Dumka for correction of the settlement entry. The said case was registered as MP Case No. 3 of 1983, which was decided in her favour on 26.3.1984. The right, title and interest of Shafali Bala Dey over the property was recognized as evident in the order dated 26.3.1984, wherein her name was confirmed as basauri raiyat, and accordingly, a correction in the settlement entry was allowed in favour of Bhagwanti Keotin. It is further submitted that the petitioner intended to sell a portion of the land to one Pinky Devi; however, when the sale deed dated 16.1.2019 was presented for registration, the same was not done. Upon enquiry, the 2026:JHHC:9929 4 petitioner came to know about the order dated 3.6.2014 passed in RMP Case No. 2 of 2012-13, by which Respondent No. 2 has barred the registration of any deeds/documents for Plots Nos. 1120 and 1121. The petitioner assailed the order dated 3.6.2014 passed in RMP Case No. 2 of 2012-13 by filing an application before Respondent No. 1. The petitioner’s application was registered as RMR No. 237 of 2018-19. Albeit an initial stay was granted by Respondent No. 1, the application was ultimately dismissed on 20.4.2022, wherein the jamabandi of the petitioner and his predecessor-in- interest (Bhagwantia Keotin) was annulled, and it was stated that all the structures over the land be demolished. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits the jamabandi of the petitioner has been running for a long time. The jamabandi of the petitioner’s immediate predecessor-in-interest (i.e., Bhagwantia Keotin) is running since 1973 i.e. for more than 50 (fifty) years. The jamabandi of the predecessor-in-interest of Bhagwantia Keotin (i.e., Shafali Bala Dey) is running from an even longer period as jamabandi no. 63/10. He further submits that the settlement of the land in the name of Shafali Bala Dey and thereafter in the name 2026:JHHC:9929 5 of Bhagwantia Keotin is conclusive proof of their right, title and interest. As the petitioner has purchased the property forming the subject matter of the instant petition by virtue of a registered deed from Bhagwantia Keotin; the right, title and interest of the petitioner cannot be doubted. Reliance is made to the case of Dhani Gope v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (WP(C) 4258 of 2023), wherein this Court has held that long-standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the act of registration of a deed/document is ministerial in nature and Respondent, while exercising powers under the Registration Act, 1908 could not have passed a blanket order curtailing registration of certain lands. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Vinod Shankar Jha v. State of Jharkhand (WP(C) 3103 of 2020) and analogous cases wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had held that while registering a document under the Registration Act, 1908, the authorities are not vested with any quasi-judicial powers; rather, their actions are ministerial in nature. 7. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that land was recorded as a pond, therefore any settlement 2026:JHHC:9929 6 made in favour of a private individual is barred. Ld. Counsel has placed reliance on para-12 of the counter-affidavit to demonstrate that on this ground the settlement in favour of Shefali Bala Dey has been rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the same has attained finality. 8. Learned counsel representing the State, further submits that the sale deeds executed in the favour of Bhagwantia Keotin and the petitioner are forged documents, which have been prepared fraudulently and cannot be said to bestow any right, title and interest upon the petitioner. He submits that the scheduled land is a valuable piece of land situated in the middle of the town of Dumka, and the petitioner is making attempts to sell the land by forging documents with the aid of certain officers. He further submits that as the land is recorded as ‘Anabad Khata’ the land is government land and as such the order is in accordance with law. 9. In rejoinder, the Ld. Counsel representing the petitioner submits that all the issues raised by the respondents are seriously disputed and cannot be proved in summary proceedings. He further submits that the submission of the respondents that settlement in the favour of Shafali Bala Dey was rejected and it attained finality is 2026:JHHC:9929 7 contrary to the records of the case as is evident from the order dated 26.3.1984, which recognised the predecessors- in-interest of the petitioner (i.e., Shafali Bala Dey and Bhagwantia Keotin) as basauri raiyats. Further, the order on which reliance is placed by the Respondent-State is also set aside by the order dated 26.3.1984. He further submits that ‘Anabad Khata’ is not government land, and even if the land is recorded in the ‘Anabad Khata’, the petitioner’s right cannot be diluted. 10. Having heard the parties and perused the record and the impugned order, the following issues are framed for the consideration of this Court: - (i) Whether long-standing jamabandi running in the favour of the petitioner (through his predecessor-in- interest) can be rejected on allegations of fraud ? (ii) Whether the respondent is empowered to direct a complete ban of registration of deeds/documents in respect of a plot of land ? 11. Coming to the first issue, the petitioner’s assertion that a Jamabandi was created and running in the favour of his predecessor-in-interest, i.e., Shafali Bala Dey and Bhagwantia Keotin, is not disputed. The immediate predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, namely Bhagwantia 2026:JHHC:9929 8 Keotin, had a jamabandi running in name since 1973. Before that jamabandi was running in the name of Shafali Bala Dey as jamabandi no. 63/10. The State has accepted rent from them and rent receipts have also been issued in their favour. Once long standing jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest is established; the respondent-state can neither annul the jamabandi running in the name of the predecessor-in- interest, nor the jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. 12. It is trite law that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to cancel a jamabandi, let alone a long-standing jamabandi. In the case of Dhani Gope v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (WP(C) 4258 of 2023), while adjudicating the scope of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. This Court held that the power to annul a long standing jamabandi lies only with the Ld. Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. The jurisprudence behind lies in the settled principle of law that decision of long standing based on which persons have arranged their affairs should not be disturbed lightly. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:- “7……Moving on, when the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the jamabandi, it cannot disturb a long standing jamabandi created in favour of an individual. The jurisprudence behind not 2026:JHHC:9929 9 disturbing a long standing jamabandi lies in the settled principle of law that a decision of long standing based on which persons have arranged their affairs should not be disturbed lightly. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain (supra) held that long standing jamabandi cannot be annulled only by the civil court of competent jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under for ready reference:- “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, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in MANU/BH/0374/2013 : (2013) 3 PLJR 533” 13. The State has tried to justify its above argument on the basis that the application for settlement in favour of Shafali Bala Dey was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer, and as such, the Jamanabadi running in the favour of the petitioner and his predecessors-in-interest has been done on the basis of fraud and forged documents. 14. This Court does not find much force in this argument for two reasons. Firstly, the argument of the State that the settlement in the name of Shafali Bala Dey was rejected is contrary to what the records suggest. The order dated 26.3.1984 passed in M.P Case No. 2 of 1983 (Annexure-SA/4) shows that the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer by which the settlement in the name of Shafali Bala Dey was disputed was set aside. Shafali Bala Dey was recognised as basauri raiyats and therefore, a correction of the settlement entry was made in favour of Bhagwantia Keotin as he had purchased the land from 2026:JHHC:9929 10 Shafali Bala Dey. Bhagwantia Keotin sold the scheduled land to the petitioner. 15. Secondly, the mere allegation ‘fraud’ is not sufficient to ignore the past proceedings and annul the jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner and his predecessor- in-interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.S. Ramaswamy v. V.K. Senthil & Ors reported in (2022 SCC Online SC 1330) has held that mere allegation of fraud is not enough; rather it needs to be supported by specific averment as how the fraud transpired. The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:- “ 31. Even the averments and allegations in the plaint with respect to fraud are not supported by any further averments and allegations how the fraud has been committed/played. Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has been played is not enough and the allegations of fraud must be specifically averred in the plaint, otherwise merely by using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs would try to get the suits within the limitation, which otherwise may be barred by limitation. Therefore, even if the submission on behalf of the respondents - original plaintiffs that only the averments and allegations in the plaints are required to be considered at the time of deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is accepted, in that case also by such vague allegations with respect to the date of knowledge, the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to challenge the documents after a period of 10 years. By such a clever drafting and using the word “fraud”, the plaintiffs have tried to bring the suits within the period of limitation invoking Section 17 of the limitation Act…….” 16. In the case at hand, the Respondent seems to have proceeded in utter haste and concluded that fraud has been 2026:JHHC:9929 11 committed. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the conclusion arrived at by the respondents is based on surmises and conjecture. Even otherwise, when such an allegation of systematic fraud is alleged, the adjudication of the same requires taking evidence which cannot be done in summary proceedings. 17. Before parting with this issue, it is also important to point out that even otherwise, the order dated 20.4.2022 is not passed in exercise of powers under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950; rather, the same is an application filed by the petitioner by which he has assailed the order passed in RMP Case No. 2 of 2012-13, as such Respondent No. 1, stands vitiated, owing to inherent lack of jurisdiction. As such, the first issue is decided in favour of the petitioner, and the order dated 20.4.2020 in RMR 237 of 18- 19, by which the long-standing jamabandi has been annulled, is hereby set aside. 18. The next issue pertains to the powers conferred to the respondent authorities under the Registration Act, 1908. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2016) 10 SCC 767, has held that the Registration Act, 1908, does not 2026:JHHC:9929 12 confer the authorities with any quasi-judicial powers. Further, in the case of Brinda Devi Agarwal Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors (WP(C) 847 of 2023), this Court, while deciding the issue of inclusion of a property in the prohibited list, held that denying registration of a document affects the right of an individual to enjoy his property and thus vitiates Article 300A of the Constitution of India. 19. An identical issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K. Gopi Vs. The Sub- Registrar and Ors (2025 INSC 462) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the authorities cannot deny registration of a document even if the title of the presenter is disputed. The registration of a document cannot be denied once all procedural requirements are met. The relevant portion of the judgement is as under:- “ 15. The registering officer is not concerned with the title held by the executant. He has no adjudicatory power to decide whether the executant has any title. Even if an executant executes a sale deed or a lease in respect of a land in respect of which he has no title, the registering officer cannot refuse to register the document if all the procedural compliances are made and the necessary stamp duty as well as registration charges/fee are paid. We may note here that under the scheme of the 1908 Act, it is not the function of the Sub- Registrar or Registering Authority to ascertain whether the vendor has title to the property which he is seeking to transfer. Once the registering authority is satisfied that the parties to the document are present before him and the parties admit execution thereof before him, subject to making procedural compliances as narrated above, the document must be registered. The execution and registration of 2026:JHHC:9929 13 a document have the effect of transferring only those rights, if any, that the executant possesses. If the executant has no right, title, or interest in the property, the registered document cannot effect any transfer.” 20. In light of the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 3.6.2014 passed in RMP Case No. 2 of 2012-13, by which the registration of deeds/documents for the land appertaining to Plot No. 1120 and 1121 was barred, is wholly illegal and as such is set aside. The second issue stands answered accordingly. 21. Consequently, the instant writ petition is hereby allowed. Pending IAs, if any, are closed. No order as to cost. (Deepak Roshan, J) 12.03.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on AFR/ 09.04.2026