1 2026:JHHC:21748 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Con. Case(civil) No.1497 of 2025 ------ Anurag Kumar, son of Late Bimal Kumar, resident of 317-B, Road No.3, Ashok Nagar, P.O-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Sri Chandrashekhar, the Secretary, Department of Land Reforms, Revenue and Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, the Commissioner Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. Sri Manjul Nath Bhajantri, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi, and District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. Sri Mukesh Kumar, the District Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi and District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 6. Sri Rajesh Kumar, the Circle Officer, Nagri, P.O and P.S- Nagri and District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) …. … Respondent(s) With W.P.(C) No. 953 of 2024 ------ Anurag Kumar, son of Late Bimal Kumar, resident of 317-B, Road No.3, Ashok Nagar, P.O-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Land Reforms, Revenue and Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi. 3. The Commissioner Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi, and District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. The District Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi, P.O and P.S- Ranchi and District Ranchi (Jharkhand) 6. The Circle Officer, Nagri, P.O and P.S-Nagri and District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) … … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Malityar, Advocate Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate 2 For the State : Ms. Amit Kumar, SC (Mines)-II ------ 13/ 21st July, 2026 1. Heard the Mr. D.K. Malityar, Advocate assisted by Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Amit Kumar, SC (Mines)-II for the respondent-state. 2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 06.06.2023 contain in Memo. No. 3029 (ii) RA dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No.4-the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the Respondent No.4 ordered restriction on the sale and purchase of land in Mouza Pundag, Thana No. 228, Khata No.383, Plot No.411 and 443, having area 3.76 acres. He also prayed for setting aside the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Sandigdh Jamabandi DCTR-Case No. DTCR 132/21-22 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No.4 - the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is initiated. 3. The petitioner has filed Cont. Case(civil) No.1497 of 2025 on 06.11.2025 for initiation of contempt proceeding against the respondents for violating the interim order dated 10.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 953 of 2024 of this court. 4. The dispute, in the present case, relates to land in Mouza Pundag, Thana No. 228, Khata No.383, Plot No.411 and 443 having area 3.76 acres and 2.68 acres respectively which were settled through registered deed dated 02.09.1944 and Jamabandi running since then in the name Sayyad Moinuddin Shah. The said land thereafter was purchased by Ganpat Mahto through registered sale deed on 28.04.1954 and land mutation was done in 1958-59 and rent receipt was issued. Thereafter, legal heirs of Ganpat Mahto sold the said land to Mahamaya Grih Nirman Swabalambi Sahkari Samitti by way of registered sale deed on 15.06.2004. The Co-operative Society came into peaceful possession over the said land. Mutation of the land was done in the name of Co-operative Society and register-ll was opened and they paid land revenue to the Government of 3 Jharkhand. Co-operative Society sold the aforesaid land to its members including the petitioner through sale deed in 2005 and land were mutated in their names and the petitioner and other member, who also paid the land revenue till date. Further, in Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. DTCR 132/21-22, respondent No.4 vide order dated 16.05.2023 ordered to initiate the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act. Also, vide order dated 06.06.2023 contain in Memo. No. 3029 (ii) RA dated 09.06.2023 respondent No.4 ordered restriction on the sale and purchase of the land in question. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. DTCR 132/21-22 is in complete violation of section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, as in Case No. 150/02-03 TR No. 25/04-05 (Ganpat Mahto vs the State of Jharkhand) already setup an inquiry under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the then Deputy Commissioner passed an order in accordance with law on 17.03.2005 in respect of the said land and cleared the aforesaid land from the rigors of Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act. Now in 2023 again the Deputy Commissioner has ordered similar inquiry i.e after a long period. He further submits that as per section 4(h) of Bihar land reforms Act, the Collector has power to make inquiry in any settlement done on or after 01.01.1946 and not prior to that, but herein, in the case of the petitioner the land in question were settled through registered deed dated 02.09.1944 and Jamabandi was running since then. Thus, the Respondent No.4 in violation of section 4(h), has setup the inquiry. He further submits that by the order dated 06.06.2023 the Deputy Commissioner himself reviewed his own order dated 28.12.2022 which is not permissible in law as there is no such provision under the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950. He relied on Judgment of Supreme Court in Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, (1987) 4 SCC 525 and submits that quasi- Judicial authority is not competent to review its own order in absence of express statutory power to that effect. 4 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-state submits that since the petitioner had obtained the order for removal of the details of the land in question from the prohibited list/Negative List of NDGRS by suppressing the fact regarding pendency of the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 being Sandigdh Jamabandi DCTR Case No.54 of 2021-22 (State Vs Anurag Kumar), Sandigdh Jamabandi DCTR Case No.132 of 2021-22 (State Vs Anurag Kumar) hence, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 09.06.2023 after obtaining legal opinion upon the matter from the Government Pleader, Ranchi vide Letter No.82 dated 26.05.2023, recalled the previous order contained in Memo No.6702 dated 30.12.2022 and stayed the implementation of said order till the final disposal of proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that the land under Khata No.383, Plot No.411, area 5.36 Acres and Plot No.443 area 8.85 Acres of Village Pundag, Thana No.-228, District Ranchi stands recorded as Gairmajurwa Malik land under the landholder Baralal Kandrap Nath Shahdeo and the nature of the same as per the record of right is entered as parti Kadam. The Zamindari return submitted by the outgoing proprietor: Chintamani Trust with respect of land pertaining to Khata No.383 of Village Pundag, showing settlement of land in the names of Six Raiyats and it would apparent from aforementioned zamindari return that, the land in question, is not shown to have been settled with Sayyad Moinuddin Shah or Ganpat Mahto as contended by the petitioner. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in LPA No.318 of 2022 and analogous cases (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Md. Zulfan Ansari) and submits that in the light of the aforesaid order, the instant writ application is not maintainable. 7. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, especially the impugned orders, I find that vide order dated 16.05.2025 the Deputy commissioner, Ranchi has setup an inquiry under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950. Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 stipulates by 5 conferring power to the Deputy Commissioner that if it comes to the notice of the concerned Deputy Commissioner that the land has been transferred only to frustrate the very object of the Act, 1950, then an enquiry is required to be conducted by providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and thereafter if a conclusion has been arrived at and the land in question has been transferred only to overreach the object of the Act, the transfer is to be annulled. The cut-off date as prescribed in the statute is 1st of January 1946 and thereafter. It is necessary to refer the provision of Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950, which reads hereunder as: “4(h) The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made [at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeat- ing any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation there under the Collector may, after giving reasona- ble notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable;] [Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector un- der this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure] Provided further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall pos- session be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been con- firmed by the State Government.]” 8. A cut-off date has been inserted for conducting such enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner as per the Act, 1950 i.e. the enquiry is required to be conducted if the transfer has been made on or after 01.01.1946. Here in the instant case the land in question were settled through registered deed dated 02.09.1944 and Jamabandi was running since then in the name Sayyad Moinuddin Shah, which is much prior to the cut-off date. 9. In this case the Deputy commissioner has reviewed his earlier order dated 17.03.2005. Review is a creature of a statue. If in a particular statue the remedy of review is not provided, any authority cannot invoke such jurisdiction. The Bihar Land Reforms Act does not provide any review jurisdiction to any authority. In absence of conferment of such jurisdiction the Deputy commissioner could not have invoked the same and set aside his own order. In this context it is necessary to refer to 6 judgment of CTO v. Makkad Plastic Agencies, (2011) 4 SCC 750, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that review is a creature of the statute and such an order of review could be passed only when an express power of review is provided in the statute. 10. The position of law is well settled that any Authority if conferred with a power, is required to exercise such power under the mandates of the Statute and if power is not vested upon an Authority and even then, if the action is being taken, the same suffers from jurisdictional error. It is further settled position of law that if any decision has been taken by any Authority not having competency to take such decision, the said decision is nullity in the eye of law. 11. The issue of jurisdictional error has well been considered by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.786 of 2018 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vrs. Izhar Hussain), wherein the Act of 1950 has been considered in its entirety by taking aid of the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990(1) PLJR 170, Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 165 and the judgment rendered in the case of Brighu Nath Sahay Singh & Ors. Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahamn & Ors. reported in (1996) 1 PLJR (SC) 65. For ready reference, para-16 of the aforesaid judgment is required to be referred herein, which reads as follows:- “16. This Court, in order to adjudicate this legal issue deem it fit and proper to go across the preamble of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which says that for the transference to the State of the interests of propri- etors and tenure-holders in land and of the mortgagees and lessees of such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, fer- ries, hats, bazars, mines and minerals and to provide for the constitution of a Land Commission for the State of Bihar with powers to advise the State Government on the agrarian policy to be pursued by the State Gov- ernment consequent upon such transference and for other matters con- nected therewith. The intention behind the proviso to provide for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure holders in land and of mortgagees and lessees of such interests as enshrined in the directive principles of our Constitution of India under Articles 39 (B) and 39(C). Section 4 of the Act, 1950 provides consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Subsection 4(b) thereof says that all rents, cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate or tenure on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the outgoing proprietor or tenure-holder and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be binding on the State Government. 7 Subsection 4 (h) provides power upon the Collector to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land com- prised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the 1st day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder the Collector may, af- ter giving reasonable notice to the 17 parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Col- lector to be fair and equitable; provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed proce- dure and further provided that no order annulling a transfer shall take ef- fect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government. It is, thus, evident that Section 4(h) confers power upon the Collector to effect any transfer if such transfer is found to be for the purpose of frustrating the intent and purport of the Act in respect of transfer made any time after 1st January, 1946. The issue pertaining to applicability of provision of Section 4 (h) fell for consideration before Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 170, wherein it has been laid down to the effect that recourse for cancellation of Jamabandi under the Sections can be taken only where any estate or tenure or any part thereof vests in 18 the State. Section 4(h) clothes the Collector with juris- diction to make enquiries in respect of transfers made any time after 1st January, 1946. Further, in the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bi- har & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 165, it has been held that annulment of settlement made in 1945 on the assumption that it was made within the family to deprive the valuable land is mere presumption. On a plain reading of the provision it is obvious that the Collector while exercising power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer must be satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after 1st January, 1946. No finding recorded that the transfer was made after 1st January, 1946. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector being an adjudicating body could not recom- mend for such annulment and had to arrive at his own conclusions in terms of Section 4(h) of the Act.” 12. Further question which is also required to be considered by this Court is whether long running Jamabandi can be allowed to be cancelled by the Revenue Authority or not. The law has been settled in that regard also by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Ramayan Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533, wherein, it has been held that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save an except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction. 13. Further the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Chanchala Devi passed in L.P.A. No.142 of 2010 along with L.P.A. No.307 of 2009, has also been pleased to hold that if the State Government is claiming ownership upon the property in question, which is in 8 possession of the tenant/raiyat and his/her predecessors-in-title, civil suit is the only remedy available with the State Government. 14. Here also in the facts and circumstances of the case, as would primafacie appear from the record that the settlement was made in the year 1944 and Jamabandi running in the name Sayyad Moinuddin Shah. Subsequently, the land was transferred through way of sale deed and presently the jamabandi is in the name of the petitioner and others. The steps have been taken for initiation of a proceeding of Section 4(h) in the year 2023 and as such it cannot be disputed that the proceeding under Section 4(h) started in the instant case is after about 78 years. 15. This Court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1256 of 2019 (Antardhari Sao Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), (decided on 19.02.2024), while dealing with the issue of conferring power to initiate proceeding after 60 years, under Section 4(h) of the Act of 1950, has held the same to be an abuse of law. Para-21 and 22 of the order dated 19.02.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.1256 of 2019 is quoted hereinbelow: - “21. In this case, the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 has been initiated after 69 years from the date of promulgation of the Act. This is a very long period which by any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be a reasonable period to initiate the proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Further a suit for recovery of possession and decla- ration of title will also be barred in view of the Limitation Act as 69 years have lapsed. When a remedy is barred under the Limitation Act, the said remedy cannot be availed by taking recourse to a Statute where limitation has not been prescribed. 22. Thus even if the Additional Collector has power to issue any notice un- der the Act, he does not have power to initiate a proceeding after more than 60 years. Initiating the proceeding after 60 years in this case is ab- solutely an abuse of law. Thus, the entire proceeding initiated by the im- pugned notice under section 4(h) is set aside.” 16. Further, it has come on record that in Case No. 150/02-03 TR No. 25/04-05 (Ganpat Mahto vs the State of Jharkhand) wherein an inquiry under section 4(h) the Bihar Land Reforms Act, was earlier initiated against the land in question, the then Deputy Commissioner passed an order that a proceeding under Section 4(h) can be initiated only where the transfer or settlement of the land was made on or after 01.01.1946 and it was ordered that the Jamabandi standing in the name of Shri Ganpat Mahto in respect of Khata No. 383, Plot No. 411, measuring 3.76 acres, was hereby re-stored. 9 Relevant portion of Order dated 17.03.2005 passed in Case No. 150/02-3 TR No. 25/04-05 (Ganpat Mahto vs the State of Jharkhand) extracted hereinbelow: अंचल अͬधकारȣ, रातु ने इस संदभ[ मɅ अपने आदेश मɅ उãलेख ͩकया है ͩक खाता ǽ. 383 एलॉट नं 411 एकदा 3.76 एकड़ पर Įी गणपत महतो एवं अÛय का पूण[ तथा शांǓतपूण[ कɶा है। िबहार भूͧम सुधार अͬधǓनयम 1950 की धारा 43(h) की कार[वाई तभी संभव है जब भूͧम का हèताÛतरण या बंदोबˑी 01.01.1946 या उसके बाद कȧ गई है। Įी फलगुनी नाथ कæयप एवं अÛय के ɮवारा दायर कारण पूछा, अंचल अͬधकारȣ, रातु के ɮवारा अͧभͧलͨखत आदेश फलक जो भूͧम सुधार उप समाहता[ सदर रांची एवं अपर समाहता[ रांची के माÚयम से उपाèथापत ͩकया गया है एवं अͧभलेख मɅ संलÊन सभी कागजातɉ के अवलोकन उपरांत तथा ǒबहार भूͧम सुधार अͬधǓनयम कȧ धारा 1950 मɅ ǓनǑहत Ĥावधान गरः सàयक ͪवचारोपराÛत खाता न०-383, Üलॉट संÉया- 411 रकवा 3.76 एकड़ पर गणपत महतो के नाम से चल रहȣ जमाबंदी को बहाल ͩकया जाता है। English Translation for reference : The Circle Officer, Ratu, in his order, has recorded that Khata No. 383, Plot No. 411, area 3.76 acres, is under the complete and peaceful possession of Shri Ganpat Mahto and others. Pro- ceedings under Section 43(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be initiated only where the transfer or settlement of the land was made on or after 01.01.1946. After considering the show-cause filed by Shri Falguni Nath Kashyap and others, the order recorded by the Circle Officer, Ratu, which was forwarded through the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (Sadar), Ranchi, and the Additional Collector, Ranchi, along with all the documents available on record, and upon due consideration of the provisions contained in the Bihar Land Re- forms Act, 1950, it is ordered that the Jamabandi standing in the name of Shri Ganpat Mahto in respect of Khata No. 383, Plot No. 411, measuring 3.76 acres, is hereby restored. 17. From the aforesaid, it is clear that a similar proceeding under Section 4(h) was initiated and got concluded in the year 2005, which became final, as no appeal was filed against the findings/order. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the state’s conduct of initiating a same proceeding in the year 2023 in respect of the same land is illegal and contrary to law. 18. Further, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A. No.786 of 2018, which has been declined to be interfered with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 8108 of 2021 vide order dated 06.07.2021, this Court is not hesitant in holding that the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. DTCR 132/21-22 (Annexure-4 to the writ 10 petition) passed by respondent No.4 - the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for initiation of proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Act, suffers from the jurisdictional error and as such, is nullity in the eye of law. 19. Accordingly, the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. DTCR 132/21-22 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No.4 - the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby proceeding under Section 4(h) is initiated is quashed and set aside. 20. In consequence thereof, the order dated 06.06.2023 contain in Memo. No. 3029 (ii) RA dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No.4-the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is also quashed and set aside. 21. However, the State is at liberty to file a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction claiming title over the land and for eviction of this petitioner. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition stands Allowed. 23. In view of the order passed in this writ petition, the contempt is dropped. 24. Pending, interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 21th July, 2026 Anu/SKC AFR Uploaded 24/07/2026