2026:JHHC:9146 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5055 of 2018 …… Hemanti Kumari, D/o Late Janak Singh, resident of village Kobang, P.O. & P.S. Pakartand, District-Simdega. …. Petitioner(s) -VERSUS- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Simdega, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega. 4. The Circle Officer, Simdega, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega. 5. The Upper Collector, Simdega, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District-Simdega. 6. The Officer in Charge, Pakartand, P.O. & P.S. Pakartand, District-Simdega. …..Respondent (s) …… CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Adv For the Respondent (s) : Mr. Neil Abhijeet Toppo, A.C. to G.A.-V …… 12/01.04.2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of letter no. 113(II) dated 03.03.2004 (Annexure-5), issued by the Upper Collector, Simdega; whereby the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled, on the recommendation made by the Circle Officer, Simdega vide order dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure-5 series) in Simdega Case No.23/2003-2004 filed for cancellation of Jamabandi ignoring the entry of the name of the petitioner in land records since the date of purchase of land. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to demarcate the land of the petitioner and pass necessary orders for issuing rent 2026:JHHC:9146 2 receipts of the land belonging to the petitioner till date which has been stopped by the respondents on vague ground 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings are that the land under Khata no.110, Plot no. 873 & 877 having an area of 21.26 acres situated at mauza -Kobang, Simdega belongs to petitioner. One Biharilal Sahu and his two brothers tried to encroach upon the petitioner’s land. Consequently, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.02.2018 before the Officer in Charge Pakartand, requesting necessary action. However, no steps were taken. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted another representation on 06.03.2018 before the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega, but again no action was followed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 107 Cr.P.C., in which the Officer-in-Charge, Pakartand, submitted a report on 04.03.2018, confirming that the land belongs to the petitioner and that Biharilal Sahu and his brothers were acting wrongfully, recommending action against them. 3. However, the petitioner was not issued current rent receipts, which compelled him to make enquiries regarding the status of his land. Upon obtaining a printout of the internet copy of the land records, the petitioner was shocked to discover that his Jamabandi had been cancelled vide order dated 03.03.2004, issued by Respondent No. 5. Thereafter, he procured a copy of the said order dated 03.03.2004, whereby Respondent No. 5 cancelled the Jamabandi that had been recommended on 17.11.2003, he preferred the instant writ application. 2026:JHHC:9146 3 4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that now it is a settled principal that long standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled. In this regard, learned counsel further referred to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramayan Yadav Versus State of Bihar, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Pat 255; wherein the same principle has been laid down. For brevity, para 8 of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “8. So far, the other point is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Jambandi cannot be cancelled by the said authority, rather a civil suit is the only remedy. On this point, a plethora of decisions are available including a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Khiru Gopt V. The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Jamui, reported in A.I.R. 1983 Patna 121. Learned counsel for the appellants completely failed to controvert this issue.” 5. Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute the aforesaid legal position that long standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid submission and the facts which are not in dispute it is crystal clear that Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by any authority; and a civil suit is the only remedy. On this point there are catena of judgments including the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Khiru Gope V. The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Jamui, reported in A.I.R. 1983 Patna 121. 7. In the case at hand, the mutation had been been done in favour of the petitioner way back in the year 1978, and for almost 25 years the petitioner’s name was running in the revenue records and he was paying rent and taxes to the Government. At best, the respondent- State could have gone for the civil Court for adjudication. 2026:JHHC:9146 4 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ application stands allowed. Consequently, impugned orders dated 03.03.2004 and 17.11.2003, are hereby, quashed and set aside. 9. It goes without saying that the respondent-Sate is always at liberty to approach the civil court for adjudication of the issue of ownership. Needless to say, the revenue authorities are directed to issue rent receipts, provided there is no other legal impediment, save and except the issue which has already been dealt with hereinabove. (Deepak Roshan, J) 01.04.2026 Amardeep/ Uploaded on 09.04.2026