Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:— “(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside the notice dated 05.09.2024 issued in connection with Jamabandi Cancellation No.42/2024-25 (Temp Filing No.17417 dated 05.09.2024) from the office of Additional Collector, East Champaran whereby petitioner is asked to show cause as to why the Jamabandi running in his name i.e., Jamabandi No.324 with respect of land pertaining to Mauza Chorma, Thana No.142, Khata No.105, Khesra No.09 be not 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.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land, which is subject matter of the present case is as mentioned in the impugned notice i.e., Khata No.105, Plot No.9, area 70 Bigha 2 Katha 4 Dhur, recorded in the name of Zeerat Malik and Thikedar and the nature of land was shown as Bhit. As from the Khatiyan it is apparent that Malik of the said land used to be the Siraha Kothi and the same was recorded in the Khewat No.2. Accordingly, the land was in the personal occupation of the recorded Malik and they have full control over the land. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice under Section 9 for cancellation of Jamabandi has been issued. Counsel submits that for the same plot in which notice has been issued to total 11 persons in which petitioner has been figured at serial No.4 has filed the present writ petition whereas the two persons of the same notice Susma Singh and Dr. Umesh Chandra Singh have filed writ petition bearing CWJC No.18863 of 2024 challenging the notice issued by Additional Collector under Section 9 for cancellation of Jamabandi has been entertained by this Court and since there was lacking of ingredients of Section 9 in the notice on this ground the said notice was said to be non-jurisdictional and it was quashed so far as petitioner is concerned. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner in the said notice at serial No.4 the facts and circumstances of both the cases are absolutely identical. Hence, the present case is squarely covered by virtue of judgment dated 10.12.2024 passed in CWJC No.18863 of 2024. 4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that it transpires from the pleading that petitioner is one of the persons to whom notice in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.42/2024-25 has been made. Learned Counsel further submits that the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of CWJC No.18863 of 2024. He submits that appropriate order may be passed in this circumstance. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the pleadings it transpires to this Court that in Section 9 of the Mutation Act 2011, there are series of decisions which has been annexed by this Court i.e., CWJC No.16269 of 2024 (Ram Naresh Roy and Others vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 24.10.2024, CWJC No.3336 of 2024 (Kumar Nawlesh @ Kumar Nawlesh Roy and Others vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 28.02.2024, CWJC No.19368 of 2021 (Rina Devi vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 11.01.2024 and CWJC No.19368 of 2021 (Rina Devi vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 11.01.2024, the operating part of these decisions are as follows: CWJC No.16269 of 2024 [: 2024 (5) BLJ 599] (Ram Naresh Roy and Others vs. The State of Bihar). “7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court, prima facie, is of the view that notice has been issued without recording the reason based on which Jamabandi cancellation case has been instituted as the notice does not record that as to which law or executive instruction were violated when initially the Jamabandi was created, as such, the notice appears to be vague. Accordingly, the notice contained in Memo No. 698 dated 29.08.2024 issued by the ADM, Darbhanga asking the petitioners to appear before him in respect of Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 173 of 2023-24 is hereby quashed.” CWJC No.3336 of 2024 (Kumar Nawlesh @ Kumar Nawlesh Roy and Others vs. The State of Bihar). “10. 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 petitioner. “10. 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 petitioner. 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. (Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Others). 11. In the opinion of this Court, a notice under Section 9 of the Act, 2011 for cancellation of jamabandi must disclose specific prima facie opinion of the Additional Collector that the jamabandi created in favour of a person is in violation of any law or is in contravention of any executive instruction. The notice apparently does not indicate as to which law has been violated and which instruction has been contravened while creating jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. The notice is completely vague, cryptic and does not disclose the ground, on which proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi has been initiated against the petitioner. 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 deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Collector, Patna is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, disclosing the materials, which are the basis for him to form an opinion that jamabandi created in the name of the petitioner deserves to be cancelled. Such a notice must be issued within two months from today, The Additional Collector, Patna shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 13. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction." 8. In view of the said cryptic notice issued by the Additional Collector, Lakhisarai which is bereft of the details of the land, a fact even acknowledged by the State counsel, this Court also follows the same route as decided in the case of Reena Devi (supra). 9. 13. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction." 8. In view of the said cryptic notice issued by the Additional Collector, Lakhisarai which is bereft of the details of the land, a fact even acknowledged by the State counsel, this Court also follows the same route as decided in the case of Reena Devi (supra). 9. The notice issued in Jamabandi Cancellation No. 140/2023-24, issued by the Additional Collector, Lakhisarai, dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) stands quashed.” CWJC No.19368 of 2021 [: 2024 (3) BLJ 254 ] (Rina Devi vs. The State of Bihar):— “11. In the opinion of this Court, a notice under Section 9 of the Act, 2011 for cancellation of jamabandi must disclose specific prima facie opinion of the Additional Collector that the jamabandi created in favour of a person is in violation of any law or is in contravention of any executive instruction. The notice apparently does not indicate as to which law has been violated and which instruction has been contravened while creating jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. The notice is completely vague, cryptic and does not disclose the ground, on which proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi has been initiated against the petitioner. 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 deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Collector, Patna is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner, disclosing the materials, which are the basis for him to form an opinion that jamabandi created in the name of the petitioner deserves to be cancelled. Such a notice must be issued within two months from today. The Additional Collector, Patna shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.” CWJC No.18863 of 2024 [: 2025 (1) BLJ 398 ] (Umesh Chander Singh and Another vs. The State of Bihar:— “8. In the show-cause notice, which is under-challenge, 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 under-challenge, 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 jíhdj.k okn lañ&42@24&25 ljdkj }kjk vapykfèkdkjh] idM+hn;ky cuke lq"kek flag ,oa nl vU;A uksfVl cuke--------------- 1- lq"kek flag] ifr] Mkñ mes'k pUnz flag] 2- Mkñ mes'k pUnz flag] firk czt fd'kksj flag] 3- Mkñ mes'k pUnz 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- eqñ ehuk dqaoj] ifr& Loñ 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 lañ&03@24&25 lefiZr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ekStk&pksjek] Fkkuk uañ &142 varxZr vuqeMyh; O;ogkj U;k;ky; gsrq fpfUg~r ftjkr ekfyd dksBh dh Hkwfe [kkrk lañ&105] [ksljk lañ&09 dh fofHkUu jdck ds fufer lapkfyr tekcanh lañ&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{; izLrqr djsa fd D;ksa ugha lefiZr izLrko ds vkyksd esa vki lHkh ds uke lapkfyr tekcanh lañ&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 rkfj[k 05-09-2024 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky; ds eqgj ls tkjh fd;k x;kA gñ@& vij lekgrkZ≶& vij ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh 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.” 6. In the light of the submissions made, it transpires to this Court that Section 9 of the B.T. Act, 2012 [Sic ? Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011] categorically says that the Additional Collector either suomotu or on an application shall have power to make inquiry in respect of any Jamabandi which has been created in violation of any law for the time being in force or in contravention to any executive instruction issued in this behalf. It transpires to this Court that both are lacking in the notice and, therefore, the notice issued to the petitioner is hereby quashed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.