2026:JHHC:20719 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.1240 of 2021 ----- Jageshwar Prajapati, son of Late Moti Kumhar, aged about 61 years, Village and Post Office-Kuju, P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh. … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh. 3. The Additional Collector, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh. 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh. 6. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & Distrct- Ramgarh. 7. The Circle Officer, Mandu, P.O. & P.S. Mandu, District- Ramgarh. … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV …...... 12 /13.07.2026: Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has challenged initiation of the proceeding under Section 4h of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Land Reforms Act, 1950 by the Additional Collector, Ramgarh in Doubtful 4h Case No. 36 of 2020-21 whereby the respondents are trying to cancel the jamabandi of the petitioner in respect of land measuring 5.39 acres pertaining to plot no. 22 under Khata No. 2 of village-Kuju, PS Mandu, District Ramgarh. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that admittedly the land was not transferred by the erstwhile Zamindar. 2026:JHHC:20719 2 It is the case of the petitioner that the land was settled in favour of the father of the petitioner by virtue of Settlement Case (i.e. Annexure-4 series and Annexure-9 series). 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the land was earlier recorded as agricultural land with forest cover and thus, the nature was recorded as jangal-jhari gairmazarua khas land. Learned counsel for the State also submits that there are records to suggest that the land at the time of settlement was shown as “tand” only to avoid the rigors of settlement of a forest land. It has been submitted that fraudulently the land was transferred but he admits that the transfer was by way of settlement by the government Authorities i.e. Deputy Collector Land Reforms. 5. Section 4h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act gives power to the Collector to make inquiry in respect of any transfer including settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest of the land by the erstwhile Zamindar where such transfer is made to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act the land of the Zamindar was vested with the State and the State was made the ultimate owner of the land in question. 6. In this case admittedly the settlement was made in the year 1975-76 by the State i.e. much after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950. Once the settlement is being made even though the settlement may be not proper or illegal, there can be no application of Section 4h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act since the same was done by the State, that too, in the year 1975-76. In this case admittedly there was no alleged transfer by the Zamindar to defeat the purpose of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. 7. Thus, on the facts of this case as there is no application 2026:JHHC:20719 3 of Section 4h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Consequently the notice dated 04.02.2021 is quashed. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. 9. It will be open to the State to approach the appropriate Civil Court if they want title over the property in question, if law permits. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 13.07.2026 Tanuj/CP-2