Alok Kumar Pandey, J.—Heard the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in para-2 of the writ petition during course of the day. 3. In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):— [A] For issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside the notice dated 05- 09-2024 issued in connection Jamabandi Cancellation Case No-42/2024-25 (Temp Filing No-17417 dated 05- 09-2024) from the office of Additional Collector, East Champaran whereby petitioners were asked to show cause as to why the Jamabandi running in the name of petitioners i.e. 2639 and 2640, 2653 with respect of Land pertaining to Mauza Chorma, Thana No-142, Khata No- 105, Khesra No- 09 is not be cancelled. [B] For issuance of an appropriate order staying the further proceeding of the Jamabandi Cancellation Case No- 42/2024-25 (Temp Filing No-17417 dated 05-09-2024) pending before the Additional Collector, East Champaran. [C] For any other relief and reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the opinion of this Hon'ble High Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Jamabandi No. 2640 and 2653 was running in the name of petitioner no. 1 and Jamabandi No. 2639 was running in the name of petitioner no. 2. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners have limited grievance that notice regarding cancellation of jamabandi has been initiated by Additional Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. He has submitted that in order to initiate cancellation of jamabandi notice, there must be material to form the opinion for initiating the notice for cancellation of jamabandi which is totally missing in the notice issued by the concerned Additional Collector. 5. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has submitted that only khata and khesra number is mentioned in the notice issued by the concerned Additional Collector and there is no any material upon which opinion is formed for initiation of cancellation of jamabandi proceeding. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that issue involved in the present writ petition is identical and similar to Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 19368 of 2021, 16269 of 2024 and 3336 of 2024 decided by coordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure-P/10 series). 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that issue involved in the present writ petition is identical and similar to Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 19368 of 2021, 16269 of 2024 and 3336 of 2024 decided by coordinate Bench of this Court (Annexure-P/10 series). 7. Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 contemplates that the Additional Collector, either suo motu or on an application, shall have the power to make inquiries in respect of any jamabandi, which has been created in violation of any law for the time being in force or in contravention of any executive instruction issued in this behalf. It would be better to quote Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, which is as follows:— “9. Cancellation of jamabandi.—(1) The Additional Collector, either suo motu or on an application, shall have the power to make inquiries in respect of any jamabandi, which has been created in violation of any law for the time being in force or in contravention of any executive instruction issued in this behalf. The Additional Collector, in whose jurisdiction the land is situated, may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to appear, adduce evidence and be heard, cancel such jamabandi, dispossess the person claiming under it and deliver the possession to the legitimate owner/custodian, on such terms as may appear to the Additional Collector to be fair and equitable.” 8. In the show-cause notice, which is underchallenge, no ground has been assigned. The notice dated 05.09.2024 is quoted here-in-below:— ^^U;k;ky; vij lekgrkZ≶&vij ftyk naMkfèkdkjh iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA Temp. In the show-cause notice, which is underchallenge, no ground has been assigned. The notice dated 05.09.2024 is quoted here-in-below:— ^^U;k;ky; vij lekgrkZ≶&vij ftyk naMkfèkdkjh iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA Temp. Filing No-17417 Date-05-09-2024 tekcanh jn~nhdj.k okn la[;k&42@24&25 ljdkj }kjk vapykfèkdkjh] idM+hn;ky cuke lq"kek flag ,oa nl vU;A uksfVl cuke----------------1- lq"kek flag] ifr] MkŒ mes'k pUæ flag] 2- MkWŒ mes'k pUæ flag] firk czt fd'kksj flag] 3- MkWŒ mes'k pUæ flag] firk czt fd'kksj flag] 4- 'kEHkq ukjk;.k flag] firk jktnso flag] 5- lqjt ikloku] firk&yksfjd ikloku] 6- ds'ko dqekj flag] firk&jkeujs'k flag] 7- j?kqoa'k jk;] firk&carh jk; 8- eqŒ ehuk dqaoj] ifr&LoŒ èkzqi ukjk;.k flag] 9- ds'ko dqekj flag] firk&jkeujs'k flag] 10- ds'ko dqekj flag] firk&jkeujs'k flag] 10- enu eksgu flag] firk&jkeujs'k flag] lHkh xzke&pSrk] Fkkuk&idM+hn;kyA bl uksfVl ds ekè;e ls vki lHkh dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vapykfèkdkjh] idM+hn;ky ds }kjk tekcanh jn~nhdj.k gsrq izLrko la[;k&03@24&25 lefiZr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ekStk&pksjek] Fkkuk uEcj&142 varxZr vuqeaMyh; O;ogkj U;k;ky; gsrq fpfUg~r ftjkr ekfyd dksBh dh Hkwfe [kkrk la[;k&105] [ksljk la[;k&09 dh fofHkUu jdck ds fufer lapkfyr tekcanh la[;k&2639] 2640] 2653] 324] 1494] 2241] 2275] 1526] 1527] 1540 ,oa 1541 dks jn~n djus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ gS] ftls lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k dj yh xbZ gS ,oa lquokbZ gsrq vxyh frfFk 12-09-2024 dks fuèkkZfjr dh xbZ gSA vr% vki lHkh dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd lquokbZ gsrq fuèkkZfjr frfFk 12-09-2024 dks vèkksgLrk{kjh ds U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj fyf[kr c;ku ds lkFk dkxth lk{; ÁLrqr djsa fd D;ksa ugha lefiZr ÁLrko ds vkyksd esa vki lHkh ds uke lapkfyr tekcanh la[;k&2639] 2640] 2653] 324] 1494] 2241] 2275] 1526] 1527] 1540 ,oa 1541 dks jn~n dj fn;k tk;A bls l[r rkfdn tkusA vkt rkjh[k 05-09-2024 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky; ds eqgj ls tkjh fd;k x;kA gLrk{kj@& vij lekgrkZ lg&vij ftyk n.Mkfèkdkjh iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA** 9. From bare perusal of impugned notice, it is apparent that no ground has been mentioned as to why jamabandi cancellation proceeding has been initiated against the petitioners. It is settled law that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court to entertain a writ application. If an order is absolutely beyond jurisdiction, this Court must interfere with at the stage of issuance of notice itself, else it will cause serious prejudice. It is settled law that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar for this Court to entertain a writ application. If an order is absolutely beyond jurisdiction, this Court must interfere with at the stage of issuance of notice itself, else it will cause serious prejudice. In this regard, reference can be made to a Supreme Court decision, reported in (1998) 8 S.C.C. 1 (Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Others). 10. From bare perusal of notice it is crystal clear that there was nothing to show that prima facie opinion of Additional Collector has been reflected in the notice issued. The said notice also not clarifies as to which law has been violated and which instruction has been contravened while creating jamabandi in favour of the petitioners. The said notice does not reflect any specific opinion and same is vague, cryptic and does not reveal the ground on which proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi has been initiated against the petitioners. It cannot be said to have issued in conformity with the provision contained in Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. 11. Accordingly, notice issued in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 42/24-25 issued by the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) stands quashed. 12. However, Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari is at liberty to issue fresh notice incorporating all the details of the land which is required in the case of the petitioners. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation.