2026:JHHC:19869 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3813 of 2020 ------ Shiv Shankar Mahto, son of Bharat Mahto, resident of Sahu Chowk, Village Pundag, P.O. & P.S. Pundag, District Ranchi. … … Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi. 3. Additional Collector, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi. 4. Circle Officer, Hehal Anchal, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & District Ranchi. 5. Jagat Ram Mahto, son of Late Samlu Sahu. 6. Ram Sagar Mahto, son of Late Samlu Sahu. 7. Baleshwar Prasad Sahu, son of Bharat Mahto. 8. Bisheshwar Mahto, son of Bharat Mahto. 9. Bijay Kumar Mahto, son of Bhaktu Mahto. 10. Lalita Devi, wife of Ajay Kumar Mahto. Respondent nos.5 to 10 are all residents of Sahu Chowk, Village Pundag, P.O. & P.S. Pundag, District Ranchi. 11. Mewa Lakra, W/o Late Budhwa Lakra, near Angan Bari, Bajra, P.O. Hehal, District Ranchi. … … Respondents ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhishek Sharan, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kr. Ram, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC-I ------ 19/ 06.07.2026 By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- “for issuance of an appropriate writ / order / direction particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice published in daily newspaper dated 06.11.2020 issued under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Annexure-5) by the Circle Officer, Hehal Anchal, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the long standing Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner with respect to 3.60 acres of land under khata no.119, plot no.336 is sought to be cancelled.” 2026:JHHC:19869 2 2. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the ancestor of the petitioner was settled with the land appertaining to Khata No.119, plot No.336, area 3.60 acres, under Anchal Hehal, District Ranchi, by the Erstwhile Zamindar, but Notice under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, was published in the newspaper on 06.11.2020. It is the grievance of the petitioner that since the jamabandi is running in the name of ancestors of the petitioner since long and the petitioner is holding the land, the jamabandi cannot be cancelled. 4. Learned counsel representing the respondent – State while referring to the counter affidavit submits that a special investigating team has been made to look into the jamabandi, which has been created in respect of the land in question and since the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is yet to give a report, the proceeding has been kept in abeyance and the Circle Officer is not proceeding in the said proceeding. 5. Considering the submission, I find that it is the case of the petitioner that the land was settled in favour of ancestors of the petitioner much prior to abolition of Zamindari and the petitioner is continuing with the same. 6. It is a well settled principle that jamabandi which is running since long cannot be cancelled by any executive order, as has been held by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Ram Kumar Sinha & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2018 2026:JHHC:19869 3 (2) JLJR 132. In the aforesaid judgment, the Court also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramayan Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2013 (3) PLJR 533. 6.1. This Court also in the case of Antardhari Sao Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. in W.P.(C) No.1256 of 2019, had held that a long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled, nor even a proceeding under Section 4 (h) can be initiated after a gap of considerable period. 7. Thus, considering the submission of the State that they are not proceeding under Section 4 (h) now, I direct the respondent – State that if they want to challenge the title of the petitioner, they should approach the Civil Court. Only after a decree passed by the Civil Court, they can proceed against the petitioner for eviction. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 06th July, 2026 Prashant. Cp-2 Uploaded on 10.07.2026