Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 646 (PAT)

Bhola Das v. State of Bihar

2024-07-16

RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

body2024
Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Following relief(s) have been prayed for in paragraph No. 1 of the writ application:— (i) Quashing/setting aside the order dated 15.10.16 (Annexure-11) issued by the Respondent No. 4 (Addl. Collector) by which the Jamabandi No. 689 running in the name of the mother of the petitioner namely Late Munari Devi has been cancelled again vide Jamabandi Cancellation Misc. Case No. 17 of 2015-16. (ii) Quashing/setting aside the order of settlement (Annexure-12 series) issued by the Respondent No. 7 in favour of Respondent No. 8 (Co-operative Society) which was issued without hearing the petitioner. (iii) Holding and declaring that the whole proceedings initiated before the learned Addl. Collector (Respondent No. 4) for cancellation of Jamabandi vide order dated 15.10.16 (Annexure-11) passed by him is not only without jurisdiction but also a purposeful attempt to oust the petitioner from his khatiyani raiyati lands/tanks at the instance of some anti-social villagers. (iv) Holding and declaring that the Respondents authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel the Jamabandi of the petitioner over the lands/tank in question after several decades, and to send the private tank of the petitioner in Govt. Sairat, specially without hearing the petitioner whose raiyati right has already been recognized by the State of Bihar as well as by the consolidation authority long ago. (v) Holding and declaring that the tank in question is the personal tank of the petitioner and other persons/authorities has no concern at all, and no authority under any Act is empowered to send the tank in question in Govt. Sairat. (vi) Granting any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled to. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was earlier recorded in C.S. Khatian as Gair Majarua Malik Land under the then ex-landlord Suchindra Narayan Singh and others having C.S. Plot No. 361, area 1 acre 18 decimals and the nature of land was recorded as Garha (ditch). The said ex-landlord settled the land in question in favour of mother of the petitioner namely Late Munari Devi in the year 1940 after finding her in complete possession over the land in question. The said ex-landlord settled the land in question in favour of mother of the petitioner namely Late Munari Devi in the year 1940 after finding her in complete possession over the land in question. After the settlement, through Hukumnama dated 20.12.1940, the mother of the petitioner continued to pay lagan to the ex-landlord and acquired status of a raiyat as the Jamabandi No. 406 was opened in her name in the serista of exlandlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after vesting of Zamindari, land in question continued in possession of petitioner’s mother and Jamabandi No. 689 was created in her name in the revenue records of State of Bihar. Subsequently, in the consolidation khatiyan, the mother of the petitioner was also recognized as raiyat by the consolidation authorities. After death of the mother, the petitioner came in possession over the land in question and continued to pay rent to the State of Bihar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the year 2012, the petitioner came to know that respondent authorities are taking steps to send the lands of the petitioner into government sairats, then the petitioner submitted an application on 17.07.2012 before the District Fishery Officer, Banka (respondent No. 7) to release his land from government Sairat whereafter the Respondent No. 7 sought report from the Circle Officer (Respondent No.6) regarding status of the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in response to letter received from Respondent No. 6, the authorities vide letter dated 05.09.2014 (Annexure-7) reported that the land in question is a raiyati land and up-to-date rent receipt has been issued to the petitioner. Despite the report (Annexure-7), a miscellaneous case vide Misc. Case No. 2 of 2012 was registered by the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 6) at the instance of co-villagers and lastly vide order dated 24.04.2015, the Circle Officer referred the case record before the D.C.L.R. (Respondent No. 5) for cancellation of Jamabandi No. 689 with observation to intimate the same to the Director, Consolidation, Bihar. The D.C.L.R., pursuant to aforesaid, sent the matter before the Additional Collector (Respondent No. 4) for cancellation of jamabandi. Thereafter, in view of report dated 9.6.2015 of Respondent No. 5, the Additional Collector (Respondent No. 4) cancelled the Jamabandi No. 689 running in the name of petitioner’s mother vide order dated 15.10.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 17/2015-16. The D.C.L.R., pursuant to aforesaid, sent the matter before the Additional Collector (Respondent No. 4) for cancellation of jamabandi. Thereafter, in view of report dated 9.6.2015 of Respondent No. 5, the Additional Collector (Respondent No. 4) cancelled the Jamabandi No. 689 running in the name of petitioner’s mother vide order dated 15.10.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 17/2015-16. Thereafter, the land in question has already been settled in favour of Respondent No. 8 (Matsyajivi Co-operative Society Ltd. Barahat, Banka) vide Annexure-12 series. 5. Referring to oral judgment dated 13.09.2022 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16985 of 2018 (Nathuni Singh and others vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of State for cancellation of Jamabandi cannot be exercised in a summary proceeding and in casual manner and if the State challenges the correctness of the settlements and the entries in relation thereto, onus is entirely upon the State to prove that they are wrong. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that longstanding Jamabandi in the name of the petitioner cannot be cancelled by the revenue authorities and for cancellation of longstanding Jamabandi, the State has to file a tile suit in the competent Civil Court. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a case reported in reported in 2015(1) PLJR 606 (Ramnandan Singh vs. The State of Bihar). Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the jamabandi cancellation order has been passed without application of mind and is fit to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner for the ratio that long stand jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding. 7. In the case of Ramanandan Singh (supra), this Court while dealing with the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, held that if the State, for any reason, wants to challenge the authority or the title of any person based on settlement made by the ex-landlord then the only option left to the State is to approach the civil court for cancellation of Jamabandi whereas in the present case, it is an admitted position that the land was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The ex-landlord after vesting of Zamindari, return of Jamabandi was filed and thereafter rent was accepted by the State and the State issued rent receipt and only when land was acquired for compensation, the Jamabandi was inquired into by an illegal order and in most arbitrary way Jamabandi was cancelled and the same order was affirmed by the Collector in the same casual manner. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the discussions made above as also the ratio decided in the judgment cited hereinabove, the writ application is allowed. The order dated 15.10.2016 passed in Jamabandi Cancellation Misc. Case No. 17 of 2015-16 by the Additional Collector (Respondent No. 4) is set aside. The State is having liberty to file a title suit for cancellation of the same.