[2026:JHHC:17422] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 6701 of 2013 Dwarika Prasad Sahu son of Late Gurdayal Sahu, resident of Hesalong, P.O. Mckluskiganj, P.S. Khalari, District Ranchi. ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Land & Revenue Department. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. Sadar, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 4.The Additional Collector, Ranchi, P.O.-Sadar, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi, Ρ.Ο. Sadar, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi. 6. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi, P.O. Sadar, P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi, 7. The Circle Officer, Khalari, P.Ο. & P.S. Khalari District Ranchi. 8. The Bhoodan Officer, Ranchi, P.O. Sadar, P.S., Kotwali, District Ranchi. 9. Fr. Hubertus Beck, S/o Patras Beck, aged about 71 years, R/o Bishop’s House, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Lower Bazar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834001. ..... … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. : Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate. : Mr. Anup Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S.C.-I. : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-I. For the Resp. No. 9 : Mr. N. A. Toppo, Advocate. : Mr. A.J. Tirkey, Advocate. : Mr. Aviral Aind, Advocate ------ 14/ 16.06.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the private [2026:JHHC:17422] -2- respondent No. 9. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 17.09.2013, passed in Misc. Case No. 01/2012-13 corresponding to T.R. No. 16/2012-13, whereby, the jamabandi of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No. 6, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi. 3. Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land was given by the land owner to the Bihar Boodan Yagna Committee for distribution to the landless person. He next submits that the land in question has been given vide Danpatra Nos. 60395 and 60395/12304 on 27.08.1975 by Society Manager Capt. B.N.W. He further submits that on the basis of said danpatras, mutation was done in the name of the petitioner and thereafter rent receipt has been issued till 2002. He then submits that the private respondent No. 9 has filed an application on 25.04.2012 before respondent No. 7 for cancellation of jamabandi, which was running in the name of the petitioner. He submits that the long jamabandi in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled, which is against the mandate of law. He next submits that no objection was made with regard to donation made to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee by the respondent No. 9. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set aside and this writ petition may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and submits that Misc. Case No. 01/2012-13 corresponding to T.R. No. 16/2012-13 was registered before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi, in which, the petitioner remained continuous absent and he did not turn up in the court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi for hearing and placing his side in spite of giving him sufficient opportunity for the same and after [2026:JHHC:17422] -3- considering the documents, it has been held that by the said authority that that the possession was there in favour of the colonization society of India Limited. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. being Case No. M- 1396/2008 was instituted between both the parties in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi in which the order has been passed on 04.10.2008 against the petitioner. He next submits that against this order, the petitioner herein preferred a Criminal Revision No. 124 / 2008 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2009. He further submits that the lands in dispute stand recorded as ‘Gair Mazarua Malik’ land in the revisional survey record of rights. He then submits that the ex- landlord, Maharaja Kuwer Nand Kishore Nath Shahdeo, had settled the land in dispute with Colonization Society on perpetual lease on 13.10.1933. The said society transferred the land in question of Mouza Mahuliya, Khata No. 09, Plot No.- 54, Area 4.62 acres to Rev. Dr. C. Sevestien S.J. Bishop for the purpose of Cemetery through the registered deed of gift on 30.03.1943. According to him, the contention of the petitioner that the land in question measuring an area of 3.00 acres has been settled with him by the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee on 27.08.1975 and the said land was donated by the Society Manager, Captain B.N.W. to the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee is not tenable in view of the fact that the Circle Office, Khelari has mutated the jamabandi of the land in question, which is recorded in Register-II at Page No. 36, however the basis of creating jamabandi has not been mentioned in the Register-II. He submits that the land in question was settled by the ex-landlord with the Colonization Society on perpetual lease on 13.10.1933 and this society gifted the land in [2026:JHHC:17422] -4- question to S.J. Bishop for the cemetery purpose. He next submits that all these facts have come in the inquiry report of the Circle Officer, which has been considered by respondent No. 6 and thereafter he has passed the order. He further submits that if such a dispute was there and the jamabandi was created by way of playing fraud, the authorities concerned are having the power to cancel the same. On these grounds, he submits that this writ petition may kindly be rejected. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 9 has adopted the argument of learned counsel appearing for the State and submits that in light of Section 10 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, it transpires that any person being the owner of any land cannot donate such lands of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee, if it is coming within the classes prescribed in conditions (a) to (f) of that Section. He next submits that in view of condition (a) of the said Act, the land itself was not prescribed for donation, wherein the claim has been made on the basis of donation. On these grounds, he submits that this petition may kindly be rejected. 7. In view of the above submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record and found that it has come in the inquiry report of the Circle Officer that for the land in question, a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. being Case No. M-1396/2008 was instituted between both the parties in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi in which the order has been passed on 04.10.2008 against the petitioner. Further against that order, the petitioner herein preferred a Criminal Revision No. 124 / 2008 in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed vide order dated 16.05.2009 and the lands in dispute stand recorded as ‘Gair Mazarua Malik’ land in the revisional survey record of rights. The ex- landlord, [2026:JHHC:17422] -5- Maharaja Kuwer Nand Kishore Nath Shahdeo, had settled the land in dispute with Colonization Society on perpetual lease on 13.10.1933. The said society transferred the land in question of Mouza Mahuliya, Khata No. 09, Plot No.- 54, Area 4.62 acres to Rev. Dr. C. Sevestien S.J. Bishop for the purpose of Cemetery through the registered deed of gift on 30.03.1943 and the contention of the petitioner that the land in question measuring an area of 3.00 acres has been settled with him by the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee on 27.08.1975 and the said land was donated by the Society Manager, Captain B.N.W. to the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee is not tenable in view of the fact that the Circle Office, Khelari has mutated the jamabandi of the land in question, which is recorded in Register-II at Page No. 36, however the basis of creating jamabandi has not been mentioned in the Register-II, as the land in question was settled by the ex-landlord with the Colonization Society on perpetual lease on 13.10.1933 and this society gifted the land in question to S.J. Bishop for the cemetery purpose. The revenue authorities have also found that the nature of the land in question as Gair Mazarua Malik. 8. All these facts clearly suggest that the nature of the land in question was Gair Mazarua Malik and further since 1933 lease was there for cremation and burial grounds, wherein the claim has been made by the petitioner on the basis of the Daan in the year 1975 and further Section 10 of The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 clearly bar to donate any land if the land is meant for cremation or burial ground, tank or pathway, clearly suggests that the transaction was not done with clean hands. Further in light of Section 11 of the said Act, the confirmation is the pre-requisite of any donation made under the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 and there is no proof of the same. 9. Opening of Jamabandi being administrative in nature can be [2026:JHHC:17422] -6- reviewed, where it is without any order or it has been passed without jurisdiction or ex facie it is collusive or fraudulent in nature. Reference may be made to the judgments passed in the cases of Mahabir Kanshi v. State of Jharkhand, reported in JCR 2008 (4) 429 and Yubraj Tiwary & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2010)2 JCR 170 (Jhr). It has been observed in the case of Abdul Jabbar v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Pat 22, where in paragraph-4 thereof, which reads as under: “4. In my opinion as a general proposition it cannot be said Jamabandi once created can never be cancelled. In Khiru Gope's case this Court merely has held following the earlier decisions of this Court in Harihar Singh's case and Jamaluddin Ahmad's case that if cancellation of Jamabandi amounts to cancellation of settlement; such power cannot be exercised. However, it may be mentioned that another Division Bench of this court in Gobind Singh v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1978 NOC 88 has held that orders of mutation are administrative orders and thus the same can be reviewed. Unfortunately the aforementioned Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Singh's Case AIR 1978 NOC 88 was not brought to the notice of this Court deciding Khiru Gope's case. In this situation in my opinion, it cannot be said as a general proposition of the law that a Jamabandi created can never be cancelled. It was reiterated in 2009(2)JCR 153(Jhr) Jagdeo Mahto Vs Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh that mutation proceeding is not held before a court of law and are not judicial proceeding but are administrative in nature. Thus, there is no bar under law in cancelling the same. It was held that jamabandi standing in the name of a particular person can be cancelled in [2026:JHHC:17422] -7- appropriate cases, where it is brought to the notice of the revenue authorities that the order of opening of jamabandi is without jurisdiction. Cancellation of jamabandi on the ground of fraud was upheld in Shakuntala Patodia VS State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2015 2 JCR 281.” 10. In view of the above judgment, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has no power under any circumstances to cancel Jamabandi, cannot be accepted. If a Jamabandi has been opened without a formal order or pursuant to an order passed without jurisdiction or obtained through fraud or collusion, it is well within the authority of the revenue officials to revisit and cancel the same. Fraud vitiates all proceedings and renders them a nullity, as has been held in the case of Meghmala and others v. G. Narasimha Reddy and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 38. 11. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the court finds that the learned revenue authorities finding the jamabadi collusive and fraudulent in nature, has cancelled the said jamabadi. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 12. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner so advised, he may approach the competent civil court having the jurisdiction to decide the dispute. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated:-16.06.2026 Amitesh/- [A.F.R.]