Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21163 (JHR)

Sharfuddin Mian v. State Of Jharkhand

2026-02-11

Anubha Rawat Choudhary

body2026
JUDGMENT : ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Nobody appears on behalf of the State. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “That in the above writ petition, the petitioners pray for issuance of an appropriate writ / rule /order / direction for quashing the order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra, in Misc. Case No. 140 of 2015 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, by which the Learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms has illegally cancelled the long standing jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners with respect to the lands measuring an area of 12.40 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 15, 331, 2727, 12, 337, 14, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338 and 13 of Khata No. 122 situated at Village Ghorighat, P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra, and order has been passed for continuance of Jamabandi with respect to aforementioned lands in favour of the respondent nos. 8 to 15. AND For quashing the order dated 27.11.2015 passed by the Additional Collector, Chatra, in Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal Case No. 04 of 2015 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. AND For quashing the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, in Jamabandi Cancellation Revision Case No. 22 of 2016 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners, contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition. AND For such other relief/reliefs to which the petitioners are legally entitled to.” 4. The brief facts of the case as per the writ petition are as under: (i) The land measuring an area of 12.40 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 14, 331, 332, 15, 331/727, 12, 336, 333, 334, 335, 387, 388, and 13 of Khata No. 122 situated at Ghorighat, P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra, along with other lands, was held, owned, and possessed by the ex- landlord namely Syed Abdul Haque, who was the descendant of the recorded raiyat. Upon the vesting of the estate, a return was filed by the ex-landlord, and rent with respect to the aforesaid land was determined in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in Rent Assessment Case No. 445 of 1960- 61. The payment of rent to the Revenue Authority was made by the said Syed Abdul Haque. Upon the vesting of the estate, a return was filed by the ex-landlord, and rent with respect to the aforesaid land was determined in accordance with the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in Rent Assessment Case No. 445 of 1960- 61. The payment of rent to the Revenue Authority was made by the said Syed Abdul Haque. The copies of rent assessment and M Role under Bihar Land Reforms Act has been annexed as Annexure – 1 series. (ii) A gift of the land measuring an area of 12.40 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 15, 331, 2727, 12, 337, 14, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, and 13 of Khata No. 122 situated at Village Ghorighat, P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra, was made by the ex-landlord, Syed Abdul Haque, in favour of his daughters, namely Bibi Khurshid Khatoon and Bibi Ahmadi Khatoon, by a registered deed of gift dated 17.04.1963. The said gift was accepted by the donees, possession was taken by them, and their names were duly mutated. (iii) Thereafter the aforementioned land was transferred by Bibi Khurshid Khatoon and Bibi Ahmadi Khatoon to various persons, including the petitioners. The land measuring an area of 18.30 acres appertaining to Khata Nos. 116, 118, 120, 122, 126, 130, 135, and 136 situated in Mouza Ghorighat, P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra, was purchased by the petitioners through a registered sale deed dated 28.04.2009. The names of the petitioners were mutated with respect to the aforesaid lands, and rent was regularly paid to the Revenue Authorities. (iv) A petition for cancellation of the Jamabandi was filed before the Circle Officer, Pratappur, by private respondent Nos. 7 to 15, who claimed themselves to be the sons of the recorded raiyat. A report was called for from the Circle Officer, and upon due enquiry, a report dated 10.07.2013 (annexure-4) was submitted stating that the said land has been recorded in the name of Syed Abdul Haque since the date of vesting of the estate, and that respondents Nos. 7 to 15 have neither made payment of rent nor they are in possession of the said land. However, the jamabandi was canceled by the Additional Collector vide order dated 15.02.2015 (Annexure-5) against which appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2015 (annexure-6) and revision was also dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2017(annexure-7). The annexures 5,6 and 7 are under challenge. 5. 7 to 15 have neither made payment of rent nor they are in possession of the said land. However, the jamabandi was canceled by the Additional Collector vide order dated 15.02.2015 (Annexure-5) against which appeal was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2015 (annexure-6) and revision was also dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2017(annexure-7). The annexures 5,6 and 7 are under challenge. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land involved in this case was owned and possessed by the ex-landlord namely Syed Abdul Haque, and being the descendants of the recorded raiyat and on vesting of zamindari, the ex-landlord filed return and rent was fixed under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act vide Rent Assessment Case No.445 of 1960-61 and thereafter said Syed Abdul Haque went on making payment of rent to the revenue authorities. Portions of the property were gifted by registered gift deed to his daughters and thereafter there has been other transfers with respect to the properties in favour of various persons including the petitioners. The transfers were followed by mutation and rent receipts were being issued in their name. 6. The learned counsel submits that there is long running Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner/their predecessor in interest right upon vesting of zamindari. He has submitted that such long running Jamabandi, which has been created under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, cannot be cancelled by revenue authorities and for that purpose, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No.59 of 2019 reported in 2022 1 JBCJ 253 (Tarun Kumar Dutta Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.) paragraph 11 which is quoted as under: “11. So far as the issue whether a long running Jamabandi can be cancelled is concerned, it is the settled position of law that the right once accrued cannot be taken away in absence of any statutory provision. So far as opening of Jamabandi is concerned, if the same has been opened and running in the name of a particular person, the same cannot be cancelled save and except by following the statutory provision but as has been admitted by the respondent State of Jharkhand that there is no statutory provision conferring power upon any authority to cancel the Jamabandi. Accordingly, the action of the authority in cancelling the Jamabandi in purported exercise of power conferred under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 will be said to be without any jurisdiction. It is further relevant to refer that even Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 does not confer power to cancel Jamabandi rather it speaks about annulment of transfer of land. It is not in dispute that annulment of transfer is one thing and cancellation of Jamabandi is another thing but the State respondents are equating both the things to be one which is not acceptable to this Court. Accordingly, this issue is also answered.” 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgement passed in 2004 1 JLJR 718 (Jitan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar) to submit that it has been held in paragraph 5 of the judgement that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled at the instance of private party and right, title and interest has to be decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Paragraph 5 of the aforesaid judgement is quoted as under: - “5. Be that as it may. From the pleading of the parties, it appears that the name of the petitioner has been running in the revenue record since 1969, the respondents had no authority to cancel the zamabandi merely at the instance of the respondent No. 6. It was for the respondent No. 6 to go to the civil Court for adjudication of his right, title and interest in the property. The impugned orders cancelling the zamabandi passed by the respondents are directly against the settled principles of law, the said cannot be sustained in law.” 8. The learned counsel submits that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, passed an order cancelling the Jamabandi vide order dated 16.02.2015, and that the appeal against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 27.11.2015. Thereafter, the revision was also dismissed vide order dated 08.06.2017. These are the orders which are under challenge in the present proceedings and the jamabandi has been cancelled at the instance of a private party which is not permissible in law. It was for the private respondent to get his right title interest etc duly declared by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 9. These are the orders which are under challenge in the present proceedings and the jamabandi has been cancelled at the instance of a private party which is not permissible in law. It was for the private respondent to get his right title interest etc duly declared by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 9. The learned counsel has submitted that the impugned orders, particularly the one passed by the Commissioner, reveal that he has recorded the respective cases of the parties, which touch upon the title dispute between them. He further submits that the Commissioner has also observed that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate how the ex-zamindar acquired the property. He has also observed that any transfer by zamindar can be made only upon permission of the deputy commissioner under section 72 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits by referring to annexure-1 series which are copies of rent assessment and M Role under the Bihar Land Reforms Act , 1950 submits that once the rent is fixed under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, the same cannot be questioned by the revenue authorities, and the title dispute cannot be decided by the revenue authorities. The report of the Circle Officer also reveals that the Jamabandi stands in the name of Syed Abdul Haque. The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the property, and if the private respondents have any grievance, they can get the right, title and interest declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 11. The learned counsel for the private respondents has opposed the prayer and submitted that the Jamabandi itself was created fraudulently and the authorities have rightly cancelled the Jamabandi. The learned counsel submits that a substantial portion of the property is in possession of the private respondent no.7. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that there is serious dispute as to the entitlement of the property involved in this case through the ex-zamindar. There have been multiple transfers through registered documents and petitioner is a transfree to the extent the property is involved in this case by way of registered deed. There have been multiple transfers through registered documents and petitioner is a transfree to the extent the property is involved in this case by way of registered deed. It is not in dispute, and it is apparent from the report of the Circle Officer himself, that the Jamabandi was opened in the name of Syed Abdul Haque and there is long standing jamabandi. The respondents have a rival claim of title through the alleged recorded tenant. The fact remains that there has been long standing jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner/their predecessor in interest and the petitioner claims title on the basis of registered deed. There is rival claim with respect to possession which also cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. 13. In view of the judgement passed by this Court in LPA No.59 of 2019 (supra), there can be no doubt that long running Jamabandi cannot be interfered with, and there can also be no doubt that the revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction to decide title of the parties. Further it has been held in judgement reported in 2004 1 JLJR 718 (Jitan Mahto Vs. State of Bihar) that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled at the instance of private party and right, title and interest has to be decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that all the three impugned order as contained in annexure 5,6 and 7 ultimately cancelling long running Jamabandi in the name of the petitioner/ their predecessor in interest are perverse and contrary to the aforesaid settled law and hence they cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and are accordingly set aside. 15. However, the title of the respective parties, as well as their rival claims regarding possession etc , can only be decided by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. It will be open to one or the other party to seek a declaration of right, title, interest or possession/recovery of possession/confirmation of possession through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. It is further made clear that any observation made by this Court in this judgement or made by any of the concerned authority while passing the impugned orders will not prejudice either party. 16. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.