JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by Respondent No. 7, wherein direction has been issued for initiation of proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Petitioner has further sought quashing of entire proceedings initiated on basis of the order dated 01.12.2020 registered as Miscellaneous case (Sandigdh Jamabandi) Case No. 9/2020-21. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the land admeasuring an area of 201.50 acres appertaining to Plot No. 402 within Khata No. 149, of Village Lohri, P.O and P.S Tamar, Dist- Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the scheduled land) was recorded as Gair Majurwa Khas land of the then landlord, namely Pradhan Radha Mohan Nath Shahdeo. The then landlord settled the land in favour of his son namely Amrendra Nath Shahdeo following which rent receipts were issued in his favour. The land thereafter has been in continuous possession of the legal heir of Amrendra Nath Shahdeo. On basis of the above settlement, returns were filed by the landlord as per Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and proceeding being Case No. 204R8/1956-57 was initiated for determination of Fair and equitable rent. After due verification by the concerned authorities, Form-M was issued in the favour of Amrendra Nath Shahdeo. Pursuant thereof, the name of Amrendra Nath Shahdeo was entered in Register-II and rent receipts were issued in his name. Amrendra Nath Shahdeo passed away in 1980 and was survived by the Petitioner, who is before this Court. 4. It has been further submitted that since the demise of Amrendra Nath Shahdeo, the Petitioner has been paying rent from time to time and manual rent receipts were issued in their name by Respondent No. 9. The seeds of the instant lis were planted when the process to digitise the land records of the State of Jharkhand started and Petitioner could not generate online rent receipt for the scheduled land. The Petitioner filed an application before Respondent No. 9 for issuance of online rent receipts on basis of which a case being Miscellaneous Case No. 1/2020-21 was initiated. He draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-5 of this writ petition, which contains the certified copy of the order sheet of Miscellaneous Case No. 1/2020-21. The Petitioner filed an application before Respondent No. 9 for issuance of online rent receipts on basis of which a case being Miscellaneous Case No. 1/2020-21 was initiated. He draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-5 of this writ petition, which contains the certified copy of the order sheet of Miscellaneous Case No. 1/2020-21. Placing reliance on the said annexure, he submits that though Respondent No. 9 has recorded that the scheduled land was settled in the name of the predecessor-in-interest in terms of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Form-M was issued in favour of Amrendra Nath Shahdeo after fair determination of rent, he has referred the matter to Respondent No.8 for appropriate direction. In turn, Respondent No.8 referred the matter to Respondent No.7, who vide order dated 1.12.2020 (attached as Page No. 30), directed issuance of rent receipt but in the same order directed that the entire records pertaining to the scheduled land be sent to the Court of Respondent No. 7 for issuance of appropriate direction under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 5. In terms of the order dated 1.12.2020, a proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 being Miscellaneous Case (Sandigdh Jamabandi) Case No. 9/2020-21 was initiated. Respondent No. 7 vide order dated 5.1.2022, on basis of a report furnished by the Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector came to the conclusion that majority of the scheduled land (around 191.18 acres) was notified as ‘protected forest’ through notification bearing number C/F17049/55-2865R dated 15.9.1955 and accordingly the mutation in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner would come under the category of vU;k; On basis of the same, he recommended that records be transferred to the competent authority i.e. Respondent No. 6 for action under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 6. On basis of the above facts, first contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order dated 01.12.2020 as well as the entire proceedings being Miscellaneous Case (Sandigdh Jamabandi) Case No. 9/2020-21 is without jurisdiction and has been passed de hors the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 6. On basis of the above facts, first contention raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the order dated 01.12.2020 as well as the entire proceedings being Miscellaneous Case (Sandigdh Jamabandi) Case No. 9/2020-21 is without jurisdiction and has been passed de hors the provisions of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. He submits that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to disturb the long-standing Jamabandi running in the name of the Petitioner and Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 nowhere grants the power to cancel Jamabandi to the Respondent. 7. Secondly, it has been vehemently argued that the notification bearing number C/F17049/55-2865R dated 15.9.1955 (Annexure-6), has not been read in its entirety. The notification states that the rights of the parties shall be subject to all existing rights of the individuals or communities until such time an enquiry under Section 29(3) of the Forest Act, 1927 is held. As no enquiry has been held, the notification cannot restrict the right of the Petitioner. 8. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the State has contended that the prayer made by the Petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law. He submits that direction to initiate proceedings has been issued in pursuance to the executive direction bearing number 758 dated 3.7.2018, wherein the Respondent has been conferred with the power to annul the Jamabandi in case the same is found vU;k; or suspicious. It is submitted that Respondent No.9 got the details of the scheduled land enquired by the concerned amin, revenue sub inspector and circle inspector and in the inquiry it was revealed that the land forming subject matter of the instant writ petition is public land. He further submits that the records show that the settlement was made by the erstwhile landlord i.e. Pradhan Radha Mohan Nath Shahdeo in favour of his son namely Amrendra Nath Shahdeo after 1.1.1946 only with the intention to defeat the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has placed heavy reliance on the demarcation map and register (Annexure-C) and working plan (Annexure-D) to show that the mandate of Section 29(3) of the Forest Act, 1927 is fulfilled. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has placed heavy reliance on the demarcation map and register (Annexure-C) and working plan (Annexure-D) to show that the mandate of Section 29(3) of the Forest Act, 1927 is fulfilled. It is contended that the scheduled land remains in the protection, management and maintenance of the forest department since the date of notification i.e. 15.9.1955 and once the land has been recorded as ‘jungle-jhadi’ its nature cannot be altered without the permission of the central government. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records of the case it transpires that the records reflect that the admitted factual matrix is that the scheduled land was settled by the then landlord in favour of his son. Returns in accordance with Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 were filed and after proper verification, Form- M was issued in the favour of the predecessor-in-interest (father) of the Petitioner. The Respondent- State is unable to refute that it has been realising rent from the Petitioner since 1956 up until 2016. This Court in the case of Dhani Gope v. State of Jharkhand and Ors (WP(C) 4258 of 2023), has already held that while exercising the powers conferred under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the State has no jurisdiction to interfere with the long standing jamabandi of a person and such jurisdiction vests only with the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. This proposition is based on the sound legal principle that decision of long standing Jamabandi based on which persons have arranged their affairs should not be disturbed lightly. 11. In the case at hand, the State has been realizing the rent from the Petitioner at least since 13.3.1957 (Page No. 27 of the writ petition) i.e. for a period of more than 64 years and as such, the same cannot be interfered with under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The essence of the argument made by the State-Respondent is that once a land becomes subject matter of a notification under the Forest Act, 1927, it vests with the State free from any and all income and encumbrances. This Court, cannot appreciate such submission of the Respondents as the issue pertaining to notification under the Forest Act, 1927 vis-à-vis Jamabandi has already been adjudicated by this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand and Ors. This Court, cannot appreciate such submission of the Respondents as the issue pertaining to notification under the Forest Act, 1927 vis-à-vis Jamabandi has already been adjudicated by this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain (05.11.2020 - JHRHC: MANU/JH/0983/2020), wherein it is settled that even in such cases, the long standing Jamabandi running in the name of the Petitioner cannot be disturbed, save and except, by a decision of the civil court of competent jurisdiction. 12. This Court has carefully perused the notification in question and finds that the notification shall be effective only once the rights pertaining to the individual/communities is settled pursuant to an enquiry. The Respondent- State has failed to bring any such report before this Court from which it would be apparent that the rights of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner was looked into and thereafter settled pursuant to the notification. ‘An act has to be done in the manner prescribed or should not be done’ is an unimpeachable and long held canon of law. On one hand, the State has failed to show that enquiry was held under the provisions of Section 29(3) of the Forest Act, 1927 and on the other hand, it is relying on the notification which is subject to an inquiry under Section 29(3) of the Forest Act, 1927 to restrict the rights of the Petitioner. Such approach the Respondent is not acceptable in light of the judgement rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Coking Coal Limited-versus State of Jharkhand and Others, 2024 SCC OnLineJhar 4015 ), the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:- “94. But the State on the one hand is taking lethargic approach even accepting the power under Section 29(3) is to be exercised for the last 60 years while on the other hand in the year 2016 i.e. after lapse of about 52 years, the restrainment orders (impugned orders) have been passed restraining the petitioner from mining operation. Such conduct of the State cannot be said to be proper. Such conduct of the State cannot be said to be proper. Moreover, as per the pleading made in the writ petition the land was leased out by the private parties in favour of Bengal Coal Company and after coming into effect of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973 all the lands where the mining operation was carried out was vested with the Central Government and for the aforesaid purpose the nodal company has been constituted in the name and style of Coal India Limited and depending upon the territory the subsidiary companies have also been constituted one of it is Bharat Coking Coal Limited, the petitioner herein. 95. The other question is that when the mining operation as being carried out by virtue of Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973, then where is the question the State without determining and without getting the report in view of provision of Section 29(3) of the Act, 1927 pass such restrainment orders.” 13. In light of the above facts and the settled position of law, this Court finds that the order dated 01.12.2020 and entire proceedings initiated on basis of the order dated 01.12.2020 registered as Miscellaneous case (Sandigdh Jamabandi) Case No. 9/2020-21, is not in accordance with law and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 14. The instant writ petition stands allowed. I.As, if any, also stands closed. Parties to bear their own cost.