Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 471 (JHR)

Shobha Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-05

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. W.P.(C) No. 2073 of 2020 has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 12.02.2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Kanke Circle, Ranchi-respondent no.2 in Misc. Case no.11 of 2019-20, whereby the petitioner has been asked to file reply to the said show cause notice explaining as to why her Jamabandi opened for the land, appertaining to Khata no.87, plot no.1232, Mouza Chama, Thana no.55, measuring an area of 10 decimals, be not cancelled under the provision of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Further prayer has been made for quashing the entire proceeding of Misc. Case No.11/2019-20 initiated for cancellation of the petitioner’s Jamabandi over the land in question. 2. W.P.(C) No. 3691 of 2020 has been filed for quashing the show cause notice dated 12.02.2020 issued by the Circle Officer, Kanke Circle, Kanke, Ranchi in Misc. Case no.08 of 2019-20, whereby the petitioner has been asked to file reply to the said show cause notice explaining as to why her Jamabandi opened for the land, appertaining to Khata no.87, plot no.1232, Mouja Chama, Thana no.55, measuring an area of 50.90 decimals, be not cancelled under the provision of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Further prayer has been made for quashing the entire proceeding of Misc. Case No.08/2019-20 initiated for cancellation of the petitioner’s Jamabandi over the land in question. 3. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are identical in nature, the same are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. W.P.(C) No.2073 of 2020 has been taken as a lead case for deciding the issues involved in both the writ petitions. 4. The factual background of the case, as stated in the said writ petition, is that the land appertaining to Khata No.87, Plot No.1232, measuring an area of 5.01 acres, situated at Village Chama, P.S. Ranchi, Revenue Thana No.55, District Ranchi (hereinafter to be referred as the said land) stands recorded in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights as "Gair Majarua Malik” in the name of ex. landlord- Maharaja Udaynath Shahdeo. landlord- Maharaja Udaynath Shahdeo. In the year 1944, he settled the said land to the extent of 2.69 acres as well as the land appertaining to plot no.1239 of the said Khata measuring an area of 0.35 acre (total area 3.04 acres) in favour of one Dev Lal Sharma, son of Ram Kishan Sharma of Village-Chandwe, P.S. Ranchi, District- Ranchi, by way of a customary Hukumnama after taking salami and fixing annual rent. Thereafter, said Dev Lal Sharma took possession of the said land as the rightful owner and paid rent to the landlord. Pursuant to the vesting of intermediary rights in the State, a proceeding was initiated vide Case No. 352-R-8 II/1955-56 for fixation of fair rent in the name of the settlee and Form-M was prepared in his name. Thereafter, fair rent was fixed for the said land and, accordingly, Jamabandi was created in his favour and he regularly paid the rent to the State Government. In the year 1986, the Settlee gifted total land of 3.04 acres concerning Khata no.87, plot nos.1232 and 1239 to his grandson- Amod Kumar, son of Ram Narayan Sharma out of his love and affection vide registered deed of gift bearing Deed No.5916 dated 18.02.1986. Accordingly, said Amod Kumar through his guardian came in possession of the said land and mutation of the said land was also done in his name vide Mutation Case no.1073/R27/2001-02 entering the same in Register-II i.e. the revenue record. 5. Thereafter, in the year 2018, said Amod Kumar transferred 10 decimals of the said land being Sub-plot No.1232/18 in favour of the petitioner vide registered deed of sale executed on 27.07.2018. Mutation of the aforesaid portion of the said land was also done in the name of the petitioner vide Mutation Case No.5239 R 27/2018-19 on 13.02.2019 and she regularly paid the rent till revenue year 2020-21. Subsequently, notice dated 13.02.2020 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.2 in Case no.11/2019-20 informing her that the said land was recorded in Survey Khatiyan as Gair Majarua Parti Kadim/Parti Pathal and jamabandi of the said land was opened in the name of the petitioner/her predecessors-in-interest illegally in contravention of the relevant rules/provisions. The petitioner was further asked to file reply to the said show cause notice explaining as to why the jamabandi of the said land be not cancelled under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. The petitioner was further asked to file reply to the said show cause notice explaining as to why the jamabandi of the said land be not cancelled under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. The petitioner appeared before the respondent no.2 and prayed for providing time to file reply to the show cause notice as well as requested for issuance of direction to the Circle Office, Kanke, Ranchi to supply the report submitted by Halka Karamchari and the Circle Inspector along with the documents in order to prepare and file her reply to the show-cause notice but the same was not supplied to her. 6. In the meantime, due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the petitioner could not pursue the matter before the respondent no.2, who vide order dated 07.03.2020 recommended to initiate a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and the record was forwarded to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi-respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 recommended for cancellation of jamabandi of the petitioner’s land vide order dated 18.03.2020/20.06.2020 and the file was sent to the Additional Collector, Ranchi- respondent no.4, who vide order dated 16.07.2020 forwarded the record to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi-respondent no.7. 7. The respondent no.7 vide order dated 10.12.2020 remanded the matter to the respondent no.4 to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 issued notices to the parties and after hearing them passed the order dated 25.02.2021 and recommended to initiate proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and sent the matter to the respondent no.7 for confirmation of the said order. The respondent no.7 vide order dated 03.04.2021 further sent the matter to the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, recommending to initiate proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, who returned the records to the respondent no.7 vide letter no.867 dated 08.06.2021 for hearing the matter at the level of the said respondent, which is still pending. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ex. landlord had settled the said land in favour of settlee- Dev Lal Sharma by way of customary Hukumnama on 11.06.1944 i.e. much prior to 1st January, 1946 and after settlement, the settlee paid rent regularly to the ex. landlord. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ex. landlord had settled the said land in favour of settlee- Dev Lal Sharma by way of customary Hukumnama on 11.06.1944 i.e. much prior to 1st January, 1946 and after settlement, the settlee paid rent regularly to the ex. landlord. After vesting of intermediary right in the State pursuant to promulgation of the Act, 1950, the settlee became the tenant under the State of Bihar and the rent for the said land was also fixed after making proper enquiry and he paid rent regularly to the State. The validity, genuineness and legality of Hakumnama was never disputed or challenged either by the respondent authorities or by any third party. Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, as the same applies only in respect of any transfer including settlement or lease of any land which was made any time after 01.01.1946 and not prior to that date. 9. It is further submitted that subsequent transfers either by way of gift or by way of sale are consequential transactions relating to the same property, which was validly recognised by the concerned respondent authorities vide Rent Fixation Case No.352 R 8 II/1955-56. The creation of Jamabandi of the land in favour of the petitioner was totally legitimate, as the same was acquired by way of registered sale deed executed on 27.07.2018 and mutation of the same was allowed by the respondent No.2 itself on 13.02.2019 vide Mutation Case No.5239 R 27/2018-19 after proper verification. Thereafter, entries were also made in Register-II in favour of the petitioner and since then she continued to pay rent to the State Government. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 has exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice dated 12.02.2020 without any valid or cogent reason. 10. It is also submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to establish that there was any fraud or illegality in obtaining the Jamabandi either by the predecessors-in interest or the petitioner, rather the name of the petitioner has been recorded in the Tenant's Ledger/Register-II maintained by the Circle Office without any objection. 11. 10. It is also submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to establish that there was any fraud or illegality in obtaining the Jamabandi either by the predecessors-in interest or the petitioner, rather the name of the petitioner has been recorded in the Tenant's Ledger/Register-II maintained by the Circle Office without any objection. 11. It is further submitted that initiation of the proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi cannot be legally sustained in absence of any decree/order passed by a competent court or it is otherwise established in any legal proceeding that Jamabandi was created by playing fraud on the part of the raiyat or creation of such Jamabandi was vitiated in law. The respondent-authorities have neither provided any document nor have brought on record any decree/order passed by a competent court as well as they have not established that any fraud was played by the concerned raiyat in creation of jamabandi. The Jamabandi once created in favour of the petitioner by a competent authority cannot be cancelled by the respondent authorities only on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures that too without any cogent evidence. The restricted list relating to Gairmajaurua land was published by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter no.1623(II) dated 18.05.2015 and the land in question does not fall in the said list. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi further wrote letter No.3863(ii) dated 11.09.2015 to the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, clarifying that there was no restriction on registration of such Gairmajarua land mentioned in the Khatiyan, Jamabandi of which was either running after settlement or the same had been transferred and was also mentioned in the 'settled/ transferred' column of the said letter dated 18.05.2015. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the said land was recorded in the revisional survey record of rights as Gairmajarua Malik land and as such the State authorities had correctly recognized the tenancy right of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner as well as rightly accepted rent for several decades. The name of the petitioner is running in Register-II, as maintained in the Circle Office, Kanke Circle, Kanke, Ranchi for last four years and the petitioner is in possession of the said land. The name of the petitioner is running in Register-II, as maintained in the Circle Office, Kanke Circle, Kanke, Ranchi for last four years and the petitioner is in possession of the said land. Moreover, prior to purchasing the said land by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 27.07.2018, her predecessors-in-interest had been in possession of the said land for more than seven decades and now after lapse of more than 78 years, the respondents have been arbitrarily and unlawfully trying to dispute the title of the petitioner and trying to dispossess her from the land. The petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the said land and her name has been mutated after making due enquiry in accordance with law. During pendency of the writ petition, the Chief Minister’s Secretariat, Govt. of Jharkhand issued Press Release No.290/2021 dated 23.05.2021, whereby the Chief Minister approved the proposal of the Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department for taking action against the guilty officers and personnel as well as for cancellation of jamabandi with respect to the said land, which shows that the action of the respondents is patently illegal, arbitrary and mala fide to somehow cancel the jamabandi of the said land. 13. On the contrary, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that a news was published in the local newspaper-Dainik Bhaskar on 02-06-2019 and 05-06-2019 that buildings were being constructed over the land marked in restricted list situated at Police Housing Colony, Kanke Circle, Ranchi. In the light of publication of the news in the said newspaper, the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand requested the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide letter No.09/31/2019-1975(9) dated 06.06.2019 that a high-level enquiry committee be constituted to enquire into the said matter thoroughly and an enquiry report be sent to the State Government. In the light of the said letter, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi constituted a joint enquiry committee, consisting of the respondent nos.2 and 3, which was directed to submit an enquiry report after making thorough enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry committee enquired into the matter and submitted its report to the respondent no.7 vide letter No.1340 dated 22.06.2019. In the light of the said letter, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi constituted a joint enquiry committee, consisting of the respondent nos.2 and 3, which was directed to submit an enquiry report after making thorough enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry committee enquired into the matter and submitted its report to the respondent no.7 vide letter No.1340 dated 22.06.2019. As per the said enquiry report, the land of Village– Chama, Thana No.55, Khata No.87, comprising of total 67 plots having an area of 106.95 acres stands recorded as Gairmajarua Malik Land in the Khatiyan and the nature of the land as recorded in the Khatiyan is “Parti Kadim”. On the basis of the said enquiry report, Miscellaneous Case Nos.11 of 2019-20 and 08 of 2019-20 were registered by the respondent no.2 following the direction of the respondent no.7, who vide order dated 07.03.2020 recommended to initiate proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and the record was forwarded to the respondent no.3. The respondent no.3 recommended for cancellation of the petitioner’s jamabandi vide his order dated 18.03.2020/20.06.2020 and the record was sent to the respondent no.4 who again forwarded the same to the court of the respondent no.7 vide order dated 16.07.2020. The respondent no.7 vide order dated 10.12.2020, however, remanded the matter to the respondent no.4 to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 issued notice to the parties and after hearing them passed the order dated 25.02.2021/25.03.2021 and recommended to initiate proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and sent the matter to the respondent no.7 and the same is still pending. 14. Learned Advocate General further submits that it has been mentioned in the enquiry report that the jamabandi of total 29 raiyats consisting of different plots of Khata no.87 are running in the Register-II, out of which jamabandi of 12 raiyats were created in the Register-II between the revenue years 1955-56 to 1980-81 and jamabandi of 17 raiyats were created in the online Register-ll in the year 2018-19 by deducting the area of the land mentioned in the Jamabandi record of raiyat-Amod Kumar. No order of the competent authority has been mentioned in the authority column of the Register–II for opening these jamabandis, which are doubtful. No order of the competent authority has been mentioned in the authority column of the Register–II for opening these jamabandis, which are doubtful. In the online Register-II, only case no.1073 R27 has been mentioned and thus there is contradiction in the details of online Register–II and original Register-II. Total 67 plots of Khata No.87 have been marked in the restricted list and apart from this, it has also been included in the land bank of Kanke Circle, Ranchi which is non-transferable in nature. In the light of the said enquiry report, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi directed the respondent no.2 to send proposal for cancellation of doubtful Jamabandi u/s 4(h) of the Act 1950 vide letter No.1424 (II) Rev. dated 03-07-2019. Pursuant to the said order, a separate record of each case for cancellation of doubtful jamabandi was opened by the Circle Officer, Kanke and the same was sent to the respondent no.7 through the respondent no.3, which is in process. 15. It is further contended that Sada Hukumnama has no evidentiary value as it is not a registered document. The Sada Hukumnana without any rent receipt issued by the then Zamindar and corresponding entry in the relevant register maintained by the Zamindar before vesting has got no value in the eye of law. The alleged Sada Hukumnama is not available in government records and the petitioner has also failed to support the said Sada Hukumnama with any other cogent material like rent receipt of the concerned Zamindar and as such the same is neither fit to be looked into nor deserves any reliance. 16. It is also submitted that to verify the genuineness of Form-M filed by the petitioner, a report was sought from the District Record Room, Ranchi, whereupon the In-charge, District Record Room, Ranchi vide letter no.177(ii)/Abhi. dated-04-06-2021 clearly stated that the alleged certified copy of Form-M did not seem to be genuine for the following two reasons:- (i) Firstly, it was not possible to issue certified copy of the Form-M in the year 1979 because as per Rule 165 of the Bihar Manual Record Rule, 1960, any document should be kept in the record room only for a period of two years. (ii) Secondly as per the document produced by the petitioners, Case No.352R8II/1955-56 by which they are claiming fixation of rent is mentioned at sl. No.17 at page no. (ii) Secondly as per the document produced by the petitioners, Case No.352R8II/1955-56 by which they are claiming fixation of rent is mentioned at sl. No.17 at page no. 288 of land records deposit register maintained for keeping the records of rent fixation cases. However, on careful reading of the said register, it is revealed that the entries made at Sl. Nos.1 to 16 mentioned at page nos.287 and 288 are related to the cases of the year 1956-57 and similarly the entries mentioned at page no.289 are also related to the cases of the year 1956-57. There is absolutely no justification for inserting an entry of a case relating to the year 1955-56 in the list of cases which are related to the year 1956-57. Hence, the entry of Jamabandi Case No.352R8II/1955-56, at page no.288, is a forged entry and by any stretch of imagination can't be treated as genuine. The name of Mr. Dev Lal Sharma has not been found in Register-II as also no rent receipt has been issued in favour of Dev Lal Sharma from the year 1955-56 till the year 1986, when he is alleged to have transferred the said land in the name of his grandson-Amod Kumar. 17. It is further contended that Registered Deed No.5916 dated 18.02.1986 by which the land in question is said to have been gifted, has been found to be fake and forged. The District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi submitted report vide Memo no.351 dated 04.06.2021 stating that the Registered Deed No.5916 dated 18.02.1986, mentioned in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 119, Page Nos. 564 to 565, has been executed between Purushottam Kumar Mishra (seller) and Bipan Bala Devi, wife of Vibhuti Koiri (purchaser) and it is in respect of the land appertaining to Khata No. 92, Plot No. 493, Thana- Silli, Mauja- Silli, area-2.5 decimals out of the total area measuring 5 decimals. 18. It is further submitted that on verification of manual Register-II available in Circle Office, Kanke, it was found that in vol no.2, Page no.115, the name of Amod Kumar is mentioned in respect of Khata No. 87. Plot No. 1232, Area 2.69, but it does not mention the mutation case number on the basis of which the said entry was made in the Register II. The said entry in Register II only mentions about one revenue receipt no. 2161275 of the year 2009-10. Plot No. 1232, Area 2.69, but it does not mention the mutation case number on the basis of which the said entry was made in the Register II. The said entry in Register II only mentions about one revenue receipt no. 2161275 of the year 2009-10. The said revenue receipt is also not genuine for the reason that revenue receipt no. 2161275 of the year 2009-10 has been issued in the name of one Koka Oraon of Mouza Chama, concerning Khata No.07, plot no.671, area 13 decimals with respect to mutation case no.405R27/2009-10 whose Jamabandi is running in vol-2, at page no.110-52 and this case no. is also mentioned in Register-27 which is in the name of Koka Oraon. 19. The online Register-II of the said land was verified by the concerned respondents and it was found that in Volume-2 of the Register-II, name of Amod Kumar, son of Ramnarayan Sharma is available at page no.115 with respect to Khata No.87, Plot No.1232, Area 80.67 decimals and in the authority column case number 1073R27 has been written without mentioning the year of mutation. This manipulation has been done while preparing the online register-II because online document has to be a true copy of off-line data as far as legacy data is concerned. The petitioner is claiming that the said Mutation Case No. 1073R27 pertains to the year 2001-02, however, on verification it was found that the last Mutation Case mentioned in Register 27 of the year 2001-02 is numbered as 518/2001-02. Moreover, no rent receipt has been issued in favour of Amod Kumar from the year 2001-02. Mutation Case No.1073R27/2001-02 was not found in Register 27 of Circle Office, Kanke. It is clear from all the documents that the very first rent receipt of the said land was issued in the year 2018, which itself proves that the said land continued as government land until 2018 which was mutated in the name of the petitioners on the basis of forged, fake and fabricated documents. The land was mutated in the name of the petitioners only in the year 2018 when it was allegedly transferred in their favour by way of sale deeds dated 27th July, 2018 and 20th June, 2018. 20. The land was mutated in the name of the petitioners only in the year 2018 when it was allegedly transferred in their favour by way of sale deeds dated 27th July, 2018 and 20th June, 2018. 20. It is further contended that the petitioners claim to have purchased the land in question by virtue of the aforesaid sale deeds in which it has been mentioned that Jamabandi was created in the name of Amod Kumar in Register-II, Volume-1 at page no. 52 and revenue receipt was issued in his name but on verification of the Original Register-II in Circle Office, Kanke, it was found that in Volume-1, at page no. 52, the name of Jaggarnath Mahali and others, concerning Khata No.47, is running and hence these documents are also not genuine . 21. In response to the said argument advanced by the learned Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is wrong to say that In-charge, District Record Room, Ranchi had stated that the Form-M did not seem genuine, rather he had only stated that the said report appeared to be doubtful. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner applied in a bona fide manner for obtaining the certified copy of Form-M in the year 1979 and, accordingly, the same was obtained from the concerned government authorities. A bare reading of Rule 165 of the Bihar Manual Record, 1960, it would appear that the department has to divide papers into four categories viz. A, B, C and D out of which A, B and C will consist of public papers classified according to appendix-D and category D will consist of the exhibits and other documents belonging to private parties. Form-M is actually a part of category A meant to be preserved permanently. Even assuming that ‘M’ Forms were required to be kept only for two years, the onus of destroying the same was with the respondent authorities. Moreover, Rule 276 of the Bihar Manual Record, 1960 does not provide for destruction of document, rather it provides as to when and to whom the applications are to be made for information and the registers to be maintained in order to enter the details of the said applications. Further, on the application filed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was informed to one Mrs. Further, on the application filed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, it was informed to one Mrs. Rashika Singh that a certified copy of the order of assessment of land rent made vide Rent Assessment Case No.352 R 8 II/1955-56 was issued on 18.04.1979. 22. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents have doubted the entry of Case No.352 R 8 II/1955-56 at page 288 stating that there is no justification of insertion of case of the year 1955-56 in the list of cases relating to the year 1956-57. However, on careful reading of page nos.287, 288 and 289 of the said register, it would transpire that the entries have been made chronologically on the basis of the date of decision and as such the said entry was made in the year 1956-57. 23. It is also submitted that the respondents have challenged the genuineness of registered Gift Deed No. 5916 dated 18.02.1986 stating that the land appertaining to Khata No. 92, Plot No. 493 has been transferred through the said deed by Purushottam Kumar Mishra and Smt. Bipan Bala Devi. On perusal of Register II of Khata No. 92, it is clear that no plot being Plot No. 493 exists under Khata No. 92, rather the only plot mentioned in the said Khata is plot no. 424. Moreover, Sale Deed No.5916 executed between Purushottam Kumar Mishra and Smt. Bipan Bala Devi is dated 13.06.1986 and not 18.02.1986. Since the date as well as the serial number of the deed annexed by the respondents are different from the gift deed executed by Dev Lal Sharma in favour of his grandson, it cannot be said that the said gift deed was forged. The respondents have claimed that the entry made in Register-II does not mention about the mutation case number and, therefore, the same appears to be not genuine. However, online entry of Register-II in the name of Amod Kumar clearly mentions the mutation case no.1073 R 27. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the respondent authorities to maintain the records and thus if any error or omission is found with regard to any entry therein, the same is solely attributable to the respondent authorities and not the petitioner. 24. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the respondent authorities to maintain the records and thus if any error or omission is found with regard to any entry therein, the same is solely attributable to the respondent authorities and not the petitioner. 24. It is further submitted that the claim of the respondents is that the revenue receipt no.2161275 of the year 2009-10 was issued in the name of Koka Oraon. However, on a careful perusal of the entry of revenue receipts recorded at page 52, Vol. 2, Register-II, it can be observed that there is no mention of Khata number along with the details of Koka Oraon. Moreover, the entry of the year 2009-10 has been intentionally inserted later on above the entry of the year 2010-11 which is fake and forged. It is submitted that on inspection of the online Register-II in the name of Koka Oraon, it can be found that there is no such entry being revenue receipt no. 2161275 for the year 2009-10 and on the contrary, entry of receipt no. 2161275 clearly appears in the manual Register-II relating to the name of Amod Kumar. Thus, it is clear that the entry of the Revenue receipt no. 2161275 in the manual Register-II of Koka Oraon is a fake and forged entry which has been made only to create suspicion with respect to the case of the petitioner. It is also submitted that there is a typographical error in the sale deed of the petitioner to the extent that Jamabandi was created in the name of Amod Kumar in Register-II, Vol.II, at page no.52 instead of Register-II Vol. I, page no.115 and the said error cannot be a ground for disputing the genuineness of the said registered document. The contention of the respondents is that the last mutation case mentioned in Register 27 for the year 2001-02 is numbered as 518/2001-02 and, therefore, the Mutation Case No.1073 R 27/2001-02 is fake and forged. However, on careful perusal of Register-27 for the year 2001-02, it would appear that Register-27 begins from 10.09.2001 and the last entry being 518/2001-02 was made on 30.03.2002. It is quite strange that entries of the mutation cases were registered only from September, 2001 to March, 2002 and no entries were made for the period from April, 2001 to 9th September, 2001. It is quite strange that entries of the mutation cases were registered only from September, 2001 to March, 2002 and no entries were made for the period from April, 2001 to 9th September, 2001. Furthermore, it is very strange that all entries made in the last page of Register-27 of the year 2001-02 are related to Ratu Circle and not Kanke Circle. The respondents have deliberately annexed the first page of Register 27 of the year 2001-02 of Kanke Circle and the last page of Register 27 of some other circle i.e. Ratu circle. 25. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had written letter no. 3863(ii) dated 11.09.2015 to the District Sub-Registrar Ranchi enclosing the list of Gairmajurua Land clarifying that there was no restriction on the registration of the lands which were either settled or transferred as per the records of the Khatiyan and were so mentioned in the settled/transferred column and the land of the petitioner is also in the said list. If the said land was under the restricted list, the same should not have been registered and/or mutated and the onus was on the concerned authorities of the Sate Govt. to ascertain, verify and inspect the land before registering the land and/or opening jambandi in favour of the petitioner as well as her predecessors-in-interest. Now, after lapse of more than 78 years, the respondent authorities cannot be allowed to question the genuineness of the transaction. 26. In support of the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has put reliance on the following judgments:- (i) The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Izhar Hussain (L.P.A No. 786 of 2018). (ii) The State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Chanchla Devi (L.P.A No. 142 of 2010 with L.P.A No. 307 of 2009). (iii) Prem Singh and Ors. Vs. Birbal and Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353 . (iv) Saras Nath Singh and Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2009 SCC Online Jhar. 1120. (v) Dilip Kumar Mahto vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2001 SCC Online Jhar. 310. 27. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners of both the cases have challenged initiation of proceeding for cancellation of the jamabandi with respect to their respective lands in purported exercise of power under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. 310. 27. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners of both the cases have challenged initiation of proceeding for cancellation of the jamabandi with respect to their respective lands in purported exercise of power under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. The claim of the petitioners is that they are the bona fide purchasers of their respective land jamabandi of which have also been opened in their names. It is also claimed that their predecessors in interest were also in possession of the said land for the last 78 years, however, the respondents are trying to dispossess them from their respective land. The respondent authorities are completely biased and acting with the sole objective to harass the petitioners by dispossessing them from their respective land under the garb of declaring the same as Gairmajarua as well as by initiating proceedings under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. 28. The stand of the respondents is that the land in question is recorded as “Gairmajarua Malik” in the Khatiyan and the nature of the land as recorded in the Khatian is “Paru-Pathal”. Further contention of the respondents is that the Sada Hukumnama produced by the petitioner has no evidentiary value since it was not a registered document. Moreover, the petitioners have failed to show any rent receipt issued by Ex. landlord in favour of the said settlee after execution of the alleged Sada Hukumnama. The respondents have also doubted the genuineness of the order of the rent fixation and the certified copy of Form ‘M’ produced by the petitioners. The respondents have further questioned the genuineness of the registered gift deed executed vide Deed No.5916 dated 18.02.1986 whereby the land in question was transferred by Dev Lal Sharma in favour of his grandson, namely, Amod Kumar. 29. The present proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi of the said land has been initiated in purported exercise of the power under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. 29. The present proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi of the said land has been initiated in purported exercise of the power under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. On bare perusal of section 4(h) of Act, 1950 it would appear that the Collector has been empowered to make enquiry as to whether transfer of any land has been made after 01.01.1946 with an object of defeating the provisions of the Act, 1950 or for causing loss to the State or for obtaining higher compensation and after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties, the said authority may pass an order of annulment of transfer and dispossession of a person. 30. In the case of The State of Jharkhand & Others Vs. Izhar Hussain (L.P.A No. 786 of 2018), the order passed by learned single Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.593 of 2017 (Izhar Hussain Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) has been affirmed by learned Division Bench and the said appeal filed by the State of Jharkhand has been dismissed. In the said case, learned Division Bench has framed one of the legal issues as to whether Jamabandi created in favour of any raiyat can be cancelled under the provision of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and after referring the relevant provisions of the Act, 1950 has held as under:- “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 proprietors and tenure-holders in land and of the mortgagees and lessees of such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, 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 Government consequent upon such transference and for other matters connected 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). 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. Sub-section 4 (h) provides power upon the Collector 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 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, after giving reasonable 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 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 procedure and further provided that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect 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. 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 the State. Section 4(h) clothes the Collector with jurisdiction 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 Bihar & 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 recommend for such annulment and had to arrive at his own conclusions in terms of Section 4(h) of the Act. 17. It further requires to refer herein that for vesting of the estate or tenure in a notification to that effect is required to be issued under Section 4 to the effect that the rent vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances from the date of notification by operation of Section 4 such estate or tenure including the interests of the proprietor in such estate or tenure other than the interests of raiyats or underraiyats shall, with effect from the date of vesting, vest absolutely in the State free from all incumbrances and such proprietor or tenure-holder shall cease to have any interest in such estate or other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of Brighu Nath Sahay Singh & Ors Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahman & Ors reported in (1996) 1 PLJR (SC) 65. Herein, as would appear from the materials available on record, that the State Government has not produced any document pertaining to notification issued under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Further the reference of notification issued by the forest department as contained in notification no. C/F/17014/58-1429R dated 24.05.1958 has been mentioned but the admitted fact after going through the Section 4 of the Act, 1950 is that there must be a notification under the provision of Section 4 of the Act, 1950 and if any notification has been issued by the forest department that cannot be said to be issued under the purported exercise of power conferred under Section 4 of the Act, 1950. 18. Admitted fact herein is that the transfer has been made much prior to 1st January, 1946 i.e. sometimes in the year 1933 by way of Auction Settlement being Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933 and, therefore, in the facts of this case the provision of Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950 should not have been initiated by the Circle Officer taking into consideration the settlement of the land in the year 1933 which exclude the land in question from the purview of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950.” 31. It has finally been held in the said case that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled except by instituting a litigation before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Bench cannot be faulted with. 32. In the case of Dilip Kumar Mahto (Supra.), learned Single Bench of this Court after relying on two earlier Division Bench judgments rendered in the case of Harihar Singh vs. Addl. Collector, reported in 1978 BBCJ-323, and in the case of Jamaluddin Ahmad vs. S.D.O. Khagaria, reported in 1979 BBCJ 605 , has held that the order of cancellation of jamabandi by the revisional authority was not justified when the mutation was effected in favour of the petitioner in the year 1978 and for the last 20 years the petitioner's name was running in revenue record as well as he had been paying rent and taxes to the State of Bihar. At best, revisional authority could have asked the respondents to go to the Civil Court for adjudication of their title and possession. It has further been held that Zamabandi running in the name of a particular person for several years cannot be cancelled at the instance of the claimant in summary proceeding and the proper course for the claimant is to move to Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief. 33. From the aforesaid judgments, it is amply clear that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled by initiation of proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, rather the State has to take recourse of filing a civil suit. The claim of the petitioner is that the land was settled by the ex. Landlord in the year 1944 i.e. before 01.01.1946 and as such the provisions of section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 is not attracted in the present case as section 4(h) provides for enquiry of only those transfer of land which were made after 01.01.1946. 34. One of the arguments of the learned Advocate General is that the alleged Hukumnama was not a registered document and as such the same has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. This Court has perused the judgment rendered in the case of Mt. Ugni & Another Vs. Chowa Mahto & Others, reported in 1967 SCC OnLine Pat 62, Full Bench of Patna High Court, wherein it has been held that a valid agricultural lease may be created by a registered instrument however if the lease is not registered it will always be open to the tenant concerned to show that he obtained raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord. It has further been held that there is no legal bar to a person claiming raiyati interest either on the basis of a written document of lease or on the basis of actual possession coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord. 35. A Bench of this Court in the case of Haroon Oraon Vs. State Of Bihar, reported in (2001) 1 JCR 156 , has also held that Hukumnama is a document by which raiyati settlement had been made by the landlord in favour of raiyat and such document was also required to be registered. 35. A Bench of this Court in the case of Haroon Oraon Vs. State Of Bihar, reported in (2001) 1 JCR 156 , has also held that Hukumnama is a document by which raiyati settlement had been made by the landlord in favour of raiyat and such document was also required to be registered. An unregistered Hukumnama is inadmissible in evidence but if a person claims to have obtained raiyati interest by virtue of unregistered Hukumnama and further asserts that he came into actual possession of the land and continued in such possession as well as his payment of rent has been accepted by the landlord, then his title to raiyati interest may be recognized. 36. Thus, on mere ground that the said land was settled in the name of said settlee by way of Sada Hukumnama, the same cannot be outrightly rejected. In the present case, the petitioners have claimed that after the settlement, the settlee paid rent to the ex. Landlord and they have also brought on record copy of Zamindari rent receipt before this court in support of their aforesaid claim. It has further been claimed that after vesting of Zamindari the rent of the said land was fixed by Rent Fixation Case No. 352 R 8 II of 1955-56 and thereafter the jamabandi of the said land was opened in the name of the settlee. Moreover, Form- M was also prepared in the name of the settlee and in support of the said claim, they have filed certified copy of the said document. The vendor of the petitioners got the said land by way of a registered gift deed executed in the year 1986 and the land was also mutated in his name. The petitioners have purchased the said land by virtue of registered sale deeds and thereafter jamabandi of the said land was opened in their names. Subsequently, they paid rent to the State Government. Thus, the petitioners have submitted various documents in support of their title including that of their predecessor-in-interest and long possession of the said land. The respondents have doubted the genuineness of the documents possessed by the petitioners. However, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction is not a fact finding court and as such is not going to examine the genuineness of the documents filed by the petitioners. The respondents have doubted the genuineness of the documents possessed by the petitioners. However, this Court exercising writ jurisdiction is not a fact finding court and as such is not going to examine the genuineness of the documents filed by the petitioners. Nonetheless, section 19 of the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 provides that every entry in the continuous Khatian and Tenant’s Ledger Register finally published under clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 3 shall be an evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect through initiation of proceeding in a civil court of competent jurisdiction which has not been done in the present case. 37. So far the genuineness of registered gift deed is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh (Supra.) has held that there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be on a person who leads evidence to rebut the said presumption. Hence, so as far as the doubt raised by the respondents with respect to the mutation entry as well as the registered gift deed executed in favour of the petitioners’ vendor is concerned, the same is required to be proved by the respondents by leading evidence in order to rebut the presumption. Moreover, the long possession of the petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest upon the said land has not been controverted by the respondents. In the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Chanchla Devi (Supra.) the learned Division Bench of this court has held that if the State Government is claiming the ownership upon the property which is in possession of the original petitioners/ their predecessor-in-title since 1942, Civil Suit is the only remedy available with it. It has further been held that the burden of proof lies upon the State being plaintiff to prove that it is the owner of the property in question and the defendant has to deny the allegations and nothing beyond that. 38. It has further been held that the burden of proof lies upon the State being plaintiff to prove that it is the owner of the property in question and the defendant has to deny the allegations and nothing beyond that. 38. In the case of Saras Nath Singh (Supra.), a Bench of this Court has held that entry in the revenue records is not a proof of title over the property but the same is the registration of the claim of a particular party through a particular document. If anybody wants to challenge the right, title or interest of that party whose name is mutated in the revenue entries, it is left open to him to challenge the same before competent court of civil jurisdiction. 39. That apart, it is well settled that mutation neither creates nor extinguishes right, title and interest of any person upon a land. Thus, the cancellation of jamabandi would not resolve the dispute between the parties. On the one hand, the state is claiming its title upon the said land on the ground that the nature of the land is “Gairmajarua Malik”. On the other hand, the petitioners are claiming their title over the said land relying on various documents including ‘Hukumnama’ of the ex. Landlord executed in the year 1944. The ex. landlord was entitled to settle ‘Gairmajarua Malik’ land and since the petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest have been in long possession, the State was required to file title suit against them for adjudication of its claim over the said land. It is well known maxim “Nemo judex in causa sua” which literally means "no-one should be judge in his own cause". Since the State is a interested party, its authorities cannot unilaterally determine the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioners in support of their claim. 40. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the initiation of proceedings for cancellation of jamabandi of the petitioners’ land vide Case Nos.11/2019-20 and 08/2019-20 are hereby quashed. 41. Both the writ petitions are allowed. 42. The respondent-State is, however, at liberty to take recourse before the competent court of civil jurisdiction claiming its right, title and interest over the land in question.