2026:JHHC:6049 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3597 of 2018 …… 1. Sanjeev Kumar Dubey, aged about 45 years, son of late Rishikesh Dubey, 2. Gunadhar Dubey, aged about 60 years son of late Yogendra Nath Dubey. Both resident of village-Pachhiyari Kothiya, P.O. and P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Secretariat, Project Bhawan. Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Dhurwa. District-Ranchi. 2. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka, P.O. Dumka, P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka. 3. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar P.O., P.S. and District- Deoghar. 4. Land Acquisition Officer, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka. District-Dumka. 5. Settelment Officer, Santhal Paragmna, Dumka P.O., P.S. and district-Dumka. 6. Assistant Settlement Officer, Santhal Paragmna, Dumka, P.O., P.S. and district-Dumka. 7. Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, P.O. and P.S. Deoghar, District- Deoghar. (Previously Santhal Pargana.). 8. Circle Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and district- Deoghar. ….. Respondents. 9. Chakram Mahto son of late Golo Mahto, resident of village Pachhiyari Kothiya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District- Deoghar. ….. Respondent/O.P.1st 10. Gultan Rai son of late Shawan Rai, 11. Gautam Rai son of late Shawan Rai, 12. Dhananjay Rai son of late Uttam Rai, 13. Kailash Raai son of late Uttam Rai, All 10 to 13 are resident of village-Purwari Kothiya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar. …… Respondent/O.P No.2nd 14. Gulabi Thakur, son of late Dukhi Napit, 15. Naresh Thakur, son of late Dukhi Napit, 16. Prem Thakur son of late Keshabve Thakur, 17. Narayan Thakur son of late Keshabve Thakur, 18. Maheshwar Thakur son of late Keshabve Thakur, 19. Shamu Thakur son of late Ganesh Thakur, 20. Kailash Thakur son of late Ganesh Thakur, 21. Bhawesh Thakur son of late Ganesh Thakur, 2026:JHHC:6049 2 22. Kalawati Devi wife of late Ganesh Thakur, All 14 to 22 are resident of village Pachhiyari Kothiya, P.O. & P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar. 23/- Anas Raiyat of Mauza Pacchiyari Kothiya, P.O. and P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar. ….. Respondent/O.P. 3rd 24. Bijay Kr. Dubey, S/o Late Jogendra Nath Dueby, Resident of House No. 65A, Opp. E/o Keshi Dham, William Town, College Road, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S. & District- Deoghar. …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shresth Gautam, Adv Mr. Awanish Shekhar, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Ms. Sweta Shukla, A.C. to AAG-II For the Resp. No.29 : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Adv Mrs. Saman Ahmad, Adv For the Resp. No.9 : Mr. Ranjan Tiwari, Adv …… 16/09.02.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 15.02.2018 passed in Settlement Revision No. 51/2017-18 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, S.P. Division at Dumka; whereby the said respondent no.2 has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner without considering the material available on record, in spite of the fact that Plot No. 912 of Mauza Pachhiyari Kohtiya, measuring an area of 3.72 Acres of land has been settled by the ex-proprietor (Ghatwal) of Rohini Estate in the year 1951 as Jote No. 39 and the land in question was recorded in the office of 8th respondent and thereby the nature of land in question became Fauti. 2026:JHHC:6049 3 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that, on 02.08.1951, Yogendra Nath Dubey (ancestor of the petitioner) applied for settlement of land to the proprietor of Rohini Estate, as the lands of Plot No. 912 had become faut. The then Zamindar of Rohini Estate settled the said land, and rent was subsequently paid. After due inquiry, the name of Jogendra Nath Dubey was mutated in the revenue records by order dated 10.10.1969 in Rev. Misc. Case No. 1 of 1969- 70 passed by respondent no. 8, and his name was entered in Register II. Jogendra Nath Dubey filed an objection petition in response to Settlement Case No. 219 of 1969-70 filed by Nepal Manjhi and others. The SDO, Deoghar, called for an enquiry in Settlement Case No. 219/1969-70, and Amin’s report was submitted therein. The SDO, Deoghar, rejected/dropped Settlement Case No. 219/1969-70. A report was also submitted in Settlement Case No. 5 of 1970- 71. Later, Misc. Petition No. 1090 of 2013 was filed by the respondents (2nd party) seeking correction of the parcha, which in fact was recorded in the name of the petitioner’s ancestor. Notice was issued to the petitioners, and they filed a show cause on 13.08.2014 along with supporting 2026:JHHC:6049 4 documents. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, relying upon a forged Bhoodan Patta created by respondent no. 9, passed an order directing deletion of the petitioner’s name and recording the name of the intervener. The petitioner filed a complaint regarding illegal construction of a shed, resulting in Jasidih P.S. Case No. 238/16. Rent receipts dated 08.09.2016 are also enclosed. The petitioner submitted an application, and respondent no. 7, on the basis of a report dated 28.05.2017, issued a letter on 13.09.2017 to respondent no. 8 for appropriate action. The petitioners preferred an appeal against order dated 20.08.2016 (Annex-6) vide Misc. Appeal No. 82/2016, which was disposed of by order dated 04.06.2017, holding that the subject matter pertains to determination of title and that the aggrieved party may file a suit in the appropriate court of law. Subsequently, a Revision Application was filed before the Commissioner, Dumka, against the order dated 04.06.2017, which was disallowed without consideration of the fact that there was continuous possession and payment of rent, and disregarding that the recorded tenant had no surviving heirs to donate the land. 2026:JHHC:6049 5 3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that a long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled under Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act and in the instant case jamabandi was created in 1969; as such on this score alone the order impugned needs to be interfered. 4. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court which has upheld the decision of the learned writ court in the case of Gokul Harijan and Others versus State of Bihar and Others reported in 2003 SCC Online Jhar 511 and submits that the issue has been decided as such the instant writ application be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the private-respondent though does not oppose the legal position that long jamanbandi cannot be cancelled under Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act; however, he tries to impress this court on the question of fact that how the land was settled in favour of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the private-respondent also admits the settled proposition that disputed question of fact cannot be decided by this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 24 happens to be intervenor adopted the argument of the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:6049 6 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the facts narrated hereinabove, it appears that on 02.08.1951, Yogendra Nath Dubey (ancestor of the petitioner) applied for settlement of land to the proprietor of Rohini Estate, as the lands of Plot No. 912 had become faut. The then Zamindar of Rohini Estate settled the said land, and rent was subsequently paid. After due inquiry, the name of Jogendra Nath Dubey was mutated in the revenue records by order dated 10.10.1969 in Rev. Misc. Case No. 1 of 1969-70 passed by respondent no. 8, and his name was entered in Register II. Subsequently, a Settlement Case No. 219 of 1969 was filed by Nepal Manjhi and others, to which Jogendra Nath Dubey filed an objection petition in response to the same. The SDO, Deoghar, called for an enquiry in Settlement Case No. 219/1969-70, and Amin’s report was submitted therein. The SDO, Deoghar, rejected/dropped Settlement Case No. 219/1969-70. A report was also submitted in Settlement Case No. 5 of 1970-71. Later, Misc. Petition No. 1090 of 2013 was filed by the respondents (2nd party) seeking correction of the parcha, which in fact was recorded in the name of the petitioner’s ancestor. Notice was issued to the petitioners, and they filed 2026:JHHC:6049 7 a show cause on 13.08.2014 along with supporting documents. The Learned Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, relying upon a forged Bhoodan Patta created by respondent no. 9, illegally passed an order directing deletion of the petitioner’s name and recording the name of the intervener. The petitioners preferred an appeal against order dated 20.08.2016 (Annex-6) vide Misc. Appeal No. 82/2016, which was disposed of by order dated 04.06.2017, holding that the subject matter pertains to determination of title and that the aggrieved party may file a suit in the appropriate court of law. Subsequently, a Revision Application was filed before the Commissioner, Dumka, against the order dated 04.06.2017, which was disallowed. 8. The issue as to whether the long standing jamabandi can be cancelled or not was decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gokul Harijan and Ors. (Supra); wherein this Court has laid down the law in para 9, 10 and 11 as under:- “9. The Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act was enacted to amend and supplement certain laws relating to landlord and tenant in the Santhal Pargana. Section 72 of the said Act very clearly and categorically provides that by the enforcement of the. Act the other law. applicable to the Santhal Pargana has not been expressly or by necessary implication repealed, meaning thereby that all the law, rules and regulation governing the field of Santhal Pargana continued to be valid and enforceable. In my opinion 2026:JHHC:6049 8 therefore, if the mutation of the land was done in the year 1972 on the basis of settlement which was made by the Pradhan in the year 1937 could not have been cancelled by invoking the provisions of Section 29 of the said Act. In any view of the matter the settlement which was made as far back as in 1937 cannot and shall not be cancelled or declared irregular by invoking the provisions of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. 10.Be that as it may, admittedly mutation was allowed in the year 1971- 72 after holding an inquiry by the Circle Officer. As noticed above the Circle Officer in his report has recorded that on inquiry it was found that the Jamabandi was created in the record of the Pradhan on the basis of settlement made in the year 1937. Such order of creation of Jamabandi and the mutation continued for about more than two decades. 11. In that view of the matter the impugned orders cancelling the mutation ought not to have been passed by initiating a summary proceeding, in this connection reference may be made to the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Jamaluddin Ahmad v. S.D.O. Khagaria, 1979 BBCJ 605 and Kalut Choudhary v. The State of Bihar, 1980 BBCJ 373.” 9. The judgment of the writ court was assailed before the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 196 of 2004 and which was finally decided by the Division Bench of this Court upholding the judgment passed by the writ court holding as under at para 12. “12. The Hon'ble Single Judge has clearly held that the mutation was done in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners in the year 1972 on the basis of the settlement made by the Pradhan in the year 1937, which could not be annulled invoking the provisions of Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. We do not find any illegality in this proposition of law settled by the Hon'ble Single Judge.” 10. Having regard to the aforesaid settled proposition of law that long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding, the instant writ court is allowed the impugned order dated 15.02.2018, is quashed and set aside. However, it is made clear that on the factual aspect this Court has not gone into the merits and private 2026:JHHC:6049 9 respondent is always at liberty to knock the appropriate forum for redressal of grievance, if any. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any also stands disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J) 09.02.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded 11.03.2026