JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Nihal Beg, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Neeraj Raj, learned AC to GA- 8 for the State. 2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition have sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:- "(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the exparte order dated 15.06.2021 in Parcha Cancellation Case No. 62/2018-19 passed by the respondent Collector, Kishanganj most arbitrarily and quite malafidely cancelled the settlement of the land of the petitioners' vendor of the year 1976 and also cancelled Jamabandi of the petitioners created by then Circle Officer on the basis of the sale deed dated 07.11.2009 executed in them favour by the legal heirs of the original settlee, without providing them any opportunity of hearing. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from interfereing in the peaceful possession and occupation of the petitioners' raiyati land purchased by them in the year 2009. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for grant of ad-interim stay of the order dated 15.06.2021 in Parcha Cancellation Case No. 62/2018-19 passed by the respondent Collector, Kishanganj, during the pendency of writ petition. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for grant of any other relief or reliefs which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. The brief facts of the case is that 7.32 acres of land appertaining to Mauza Simalbari, Thana No. 25, District Kishanganj was settled by the Revenue Authority in Settlement Case No. 21/1976-77 in the joint names of four persons, namely Israr Hussain, Girbuddin, Md. Idris and Bibi Aysha Khatoon, each having equal share, and after the death of co-settlee Aysha Khatoon in 1980, her legal heirs Md. Aslam, Md. Akmal, Kuresha Khatoon and Gulfan Nisha inherited her 1.83 acres of land under Khata No. 70 comprising Khesra Nos. 393, 394, 609, 608, 611, 614, 602, 606, 604 (Area 1 acre 26 decimals) and Khesra Nos. Aslam, Md. Akmal, Kuresha Khatoon and Gulfan Nisha inherited her 1.83 acres of land under Khata No. 70 comprising Khesra Nos. 393, 394, 609, 608, 611, 614, 602, 606, 604 (Area 1 acre 26 decimals) and Khesra Nos. 616, 588, 586, 591, 592, 594 (Area 57 decimals), remained in peaceful possession, and subsequently sold the same to the petitioners through a registered sale deed dated 07.11.2009, whereafter the petitioners’ names were duly mutated and rent receipts were issued; however, the petitioners recently learnt upon enquiry that the parcha of the original settlee and the petitioners’ jamabandi had been cancelled by the respondent Collector without impleading the legal heirs of the deceased settlee and without granting any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, and the authorities are now threatening to dispossess them. Petitioners are aggrieved by the cancellation of Jamabandi which relates to six decades-old settlement in the name of the petitioners' ancestor by a summary proceeding without following the principles of natural justice. The order is based on inapplicable provisions of the BIHAR LAND CEILING ACT and the 2014 circular. Petitioners claim that they had acquired valid right, title and possession through lawful purchase, and therefore seeks interference of this Court rendering the alleged impugned action arbitrary and malafide action of the concerned authority being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are aggrieved by cancellation of Parcha, which was granted to the original settlee relating to Bandobasti Case No. 21/1976-77 in respect of 7.32 acres of land which was settled in favour of ancestor of the petitioner Late Ishraq Hussain, Gorbiuddin, Md. Idris and B.B. Adso Khatoon/ Ayesha Khatoon, son and daughter of Dilawar Ali, resident of Simbalbadi, District- Kishanganj. He further submitted that the settlee were in peaceful possession of the land after settlement for nearly six decades and they had right to transfer the said land to any other persons. The vendor of the petitioners being the descendant of one of the settlee, Adso Khatoon/Ayesha Khatoon had sold to the petitioners vide registered sale deed no. He further submitted that the settlee were in peaceful possession of the land after settlement for nearly six decades and they had right to transfer the said land to any other persons. The vendor of the petitioners being the descendant of one of the settlee, Adso Khatoon/Ayesha Khatoon had sold to the petitioners vide registered sale deed no. 7256 dated 07.11.2009, the petitioners are claiming to have purchased the said land from Adso Khatoon/Ayesha Khatoon in respect of total area of 1.83 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 70, Khesra No. 393, 394, 609, 608, 611, 614, 602, 606, 604 Area 1.26 acres and Khesra No. 616, 588, 586, 591, 592, 594 area 57 decimals. Learned counsel further questioning the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector submitted that Section 9 (i) of the Bihar Mutation Act has been declared ultra vires to the Constitution of India, by the Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 16494 of 2018 (Ramowtar Lakhotia vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.) vide judgment dated 10.04.2024. The provision of Section 27 of the BIHAR LAND CEILING ACT along with Circular of the year 2014 issued by the State of Bihar are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. He further submitted that District Magistrate-cum-Collector or the revenue authorities have got no power or jurisdiction to cancel the Parcha after six decades summarily by passing the order dated 15.06.2021. Learned counsel next submitted that the authority of Parcha issued in the name of person, who has died and no order could have been passed against dead person cancelling the Parcha after six decades. Learned counsel informs that once the sale deed has been executed in favour of the petitioners, which was executed by the son of Late Adso Khatoon/Ayesha Khatoon, the original settlee, couldnot have been questioned by the revenue authorities and as such, cancellation of Parcha against a dead person is void ab initio. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks that the order dated 15.06.2021 passed in Parcha Cancellation Case No. 62/2018-19 is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Neeraj Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after unreasonable delay of five years is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not for indolent person. 5. Per contra, Mr. Neeraj Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the present writ petition has been filed after unreasonable delay of five years is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is not for indolent person. Learned counsel on merits submitted that the petitioners on the basis of the sale deed executed by son and daughter of original settlee, who was landless, has claimed his right over the land as described above. He further submitted that Section 9 of Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1947) prohibits transfer of Privilege tenants right and Section 12 restricts transfer by way of private sell can only be made with the permission of Collector. He further submitted that in absence of the scheme or the purpose with which the land was settled in favour of the four persons in respect of Bandobasti Case No. 21/1976-77 measuring total 7.32 acres of land, it can be assumed that according to the Act 1947, the original settlee, who came into possession of the said land, had no right to transfer and as such, the descendant of the original settlee, who are in shoes of the original settlee, could not have executed the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. He further submitted that that there is no information regarding the Act under which the original settlee got settlement in the Settlement Case No. 21/1976-77 and at the same time, the claim of possession based on xerox copy document creates doubt regarding any settlement made. He submitted that the provisions of Bihar Bhudan Yojana Act , 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1954) and its corresponding regulations or in respect of the surplus land declared in Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961), the landless person cannot transfer the land to any other person. Petitioners have admitted that the said land, which was distributed to Late Adso Khatoon/Ayesha Khatoon, was a landless person. Petitioners have admitted that the said land, which was distributed to Late Adso Khatoon/Ayesha Khatoon, was a landless person. The Section 27 (3) of the Act, 1961 also prohibits the transfer of such land by executing sale deed, rendering the sale deed a void instrument, thereafter, the question of mutation of the land on the basis of the void registered sale deed does not arise, as such, there is no infirmity in the order dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Circle Officer and the order dated 15.06.2021 passed in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 123/2014-15 by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 6. Heard the parties. 7. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the Circle Officer and the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, who have refused to mutate the land purchased by them vide registered Sale Deed No. 7256 dated 07.11.2009 in respect of the land appertaining to Khata No. 70 comprising Khesra Nos. 393, 394, 609, 608, 611, 614, 602, 606, 604 (Area 1 acre 26 decimals) and Khesra Nos. 616, 588, 586, 591, 592, 594 (Area 57 decimals). It is admitted that the vendor of the petitioners is the descendant of the original settlee Late Adso Khatoon/Ayesha Khatoon, who was landless at the time. The land in dispute was settled vide settlement Case No. 21/1976-77. The petitioners have handed over to this Court a xerox copy of page no. 82 of Bandobasti Panji in respect of the year 1976 of the District Kishanganj. From the said xerox copy, it appears that the land was donated by a Jamindar, namely, Naimuddin son of Jalalaudin, resident of Simbalbadi, Kishanganj, which is referred in S.O. No. 1091 dated 01.09.1976, but the same has not been brought on record. 8. The question, which requires to be decided in the present writ petition is, as to whether, the vendor of the petitioners was having statutory right to transfer the land, which was settled in the name of his ancestor, who was landless, pursuant to Settlement Case No. 21/1976-77. 9. Before answering the said question, I find it relevant to give the three primary legislative acts, which govern the distribution and protection of land of the landless persons. (I) Section 9 of the BIHAR PRIVILEGED PERSONS HOMESTEAD TENANCY ACT ,1947 " 9. Restriction on transfer of privileged tenant's right. 9. Before answering the said question, I find it relevant to give the three primary legislative acts, which govern the distribution and protection of land of the landless persons. (I) Section 9 of the BIHAR PRIVILEGED PERSONS HOMESTEAD TENANCY ACT ,1947 " 9. Restriction on transfer of privileged tenant's right. - No transfer made by a privileged tenant of his right in his holding or in any portion thereof, by private sale, gift, will, mortgage, lease or any contract or agreement shall be valid to any extent except as provided in Sections 10 to 17." (II) Section 14 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act,1954 "14. Grant of land to landless persons. Grant of land to landless persons. (1)The Committee or such other authority or person, as the Committee may specify, either generally or in respect of any local area, in the prescribed manner, may, [subject to sub-section (2)] [Inserted by Act 14 of 1965.] grant lands which have vested in the Committee to landless persons [or to a village Community, Gram Panchayat, or a Co-operative Society] [Inserted by Bihar Act No. 15 of 1959.] organised by the Committee] and the grantee of the land shall acquire the same right, title and interest as the donor had in such land:Provided that- (i) in case the donor's interest in such land was that of a proprietor or tenure-holder as defined in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950), the grantee's right, title and interest shall be that of an occupancy raiyat liable to pay rent to the State Government; (ii) in case the estate or tenure, as the case may be in which such land is situated has vested in the State under the said Act, the right, title and interest of the grantee shall also be subject to the provisions of that Act; and (iii)in case such land has vested in the Committee under Section 12, the right, title and interest of the grantee shall be that of an occupancy raiyat liable to pay rent to the State Government; Provided further that- (i) [grantee, his heirs, assigns or successor-in- interest shall not be competent to sublet or transfer the land or any portion thereof by sale, gift or otherwise, but shall be competent to transfer the same by exchange with the previous permission of the Committee in writing ; and [Substituted by Bihar Act No. 15 of 1959.] (ii)the rights of the grantee over such land shall be subject to such other restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed1 [by the Committee], [Provided also that the grantee, his heirs, assignee, or successors-in-interest may enter into a simple mortgage for raising loan for agricultural purposes in respect of land with a bank or society registered or deemed to be registered under the Bihar Co- operative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935) or with the State Bank of India or a bank specified in column 2 of the First Schedule to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act V of 1970) or with a company or a corporation owned by or in which not less than fifty-one percent of the share capital is held by the State Government or the Central Government or partly by the State Government and partly by the Central Government and which has been set up for raising loan for agricultural purposes] [Added by Act 8 of 1981.]. (2)All grants shall be made as far as may be in accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan Yagna as may be prescribed;[Provided that in making grants of waste lands in the districts of Santhal Parganas which have vested in the Committee the principle prescribed for settlement of waste lands under Section 2.8 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (Bihar Act XIV of 1949), shall be followed.] [Inserted by Bihar Act 14 of 1965, Section 9 .] (2)For the purpose of grant of lands under this section, the Committee may, by regulations, fix after taking into consideration the quality of lands, the maximum and minimum areas to be granted to a landless person [or to a village community, Gram Panchayat or a co-operative society organised by the Committee] [Inserted by Bihar Act 14 of 1965, Section 9 .] and different areas may be fixed for different districts, sub-divisions or thanas. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, means a raiyat having a right of occupancy in the land held by him [within the meaning of the tenancy law of the area in which it is situated]. (III) Sub-Section 3 of Section 27 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 " Section 27 (3)- [ The land settled by the Collector under sub-section (1) shall be heritable but shall not be transferable: Provided that the settlee may enter into a simple mortgage in respect of the land with a society or bank registered or deemed to be registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (B & O Act VI of 1935) or with the State Bank of India or a bank specified in Column 2 of the First Schedule to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (Act 5 of 1970) or with a Company or a Corporation owned by or in which not less than fifty-one percent of share capital is held by the State Government or the Central Government or partly by the State Government and partly by the Central Government, for raising loan for agricultural purposes.] [Sub- section (3) omitted and sub-section (4) re-numbered as sub-section (3) by Act 55 of 1982.]" 10. From the perusal of the provision of all the different acts, which grant privileged tenant/landless, a permanent tenancy right in the homestead land, but the provisions of the Acts restrain privileged persons from transferring the land as per Section 9 of the Act, 1947 in respect of those landless persons, who have been granted land as per the Bhudan Yojana Committee, Section 14 of the Act, 1954 or in respect of settlement of surplus in accordance with Sub-Section 3 of Section 27 of the Act, 1961 having settled to a landless person, however, it is inheritable. 11. The petitioners in support of their claim have relied on the judgment dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramowtar Lakhotia (Supra) I find it relevant to produce paragraphs no. 16 to 20, which are as under : "16. The Bihar Land Mutation, Act 2011 has been incorporated to provide for regulating the process of mutation of land and making it concomitant with the needs of the present times. Section 2 (1) defines “Mutation” as alteration in the entries in the Continuous Khatian, Tenants’ Ledger and Khesra Register on account of transfer of right of a person in a holding or a part thereof by way of any of the means/instruments mentioned therein from clause (a) to (p). Sub-section (2) describes “Record of Rights” as the latest Record of Rights as finally published under Chapter X of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885. Sub-section (22) speaks of Mutation Petition Register and sub-section (23) talks about Mutation Register, wherein the petitions filed before the Circle Officer and the orders passed therein are entered as registered. Sub-section (26) defines “Jamabandi”, which reads as follows: “(26) “Jamabandi” means a number showing the page allotted to all tenants in Tenants Ledger Register where entries of details of their tenancies as well as demand and collection of rent and cess are made.” 17. Now, coming to impugned Section 9 (i)which talks about Cancellation of Jamabandi, it would be apposite to quote hereunder: “9 (i) Cancellation of Jamabandi .- 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.” [portion underlined by us is the subject of challenge] 18. All proceedings under the Act are to be summary in nature, as per Section 11 of the Act, 2011. The Collector, Additional Collector, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Circle Officer under this Act shall have the same powers in admission of evidence, making enquiries, summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, compelling the production of documents and award of costs as are vested in a Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as per Section 16. Section 21 says that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any of the provisions contained in other laws. Lastly, the power of the Government to make Rules, is prescribed under Section 22 of the Act, 2011. 19. Now, we come to Bihar Mutation Rules, 2012, framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 22 of the Act, 2011. Rule 13 deals with the cancellation of Jamabandi and sub Rule (11) and (12) of Rule 13 which are impugned herein, empowers the Additional Collector to dispossess a person whose Jamabandi has been cancelled and put in possession, of the person, whose claim appears to be legitimate on terms as deemed fair and equitable. If it is not possible without the use of force, the Additional Collector could ensure the same by deputation of Magistrate and direct Deputy Superintendent of Police for deputation of police officer with adequate force for dispossessing persons claiming under the cancelled Jamabandi and restore the possession of legitimate owner/custodian of the land. 20. Having noted all the relevant provisions, now coming to mutation and Jamabandi and its effect, it is needless to observe as mandated by the decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court; mutation of land in the revenue records, only enables the person in whose favour, mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue, in question. 20. Having noted all the relevant provisions, now coming to mutation and Jamabandi and its effect, it is needless to observe as mandated by the decisions of this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court; mutation of land in the revenue records, only enables the person in whose favour, mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue, in question. Undoubtedly, the entries in the revenue record does not create any title in respect of the land in dispute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that mutation of land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor has it any presumptive value on the title.[Vide Sawarni Vs. Inder Kaur reported in 1996 (6) SCC 223 , Balwant Singh Vs. Daulat Singh reported in 1997 (7) SCC 137 and Narasamma & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2009 (5) SCC 591 ]." 12. The Division Bench has finally concluded in paragraphs no. 48 and 49 as under: "48. In the aforesaid premise of settled legal position that mutation/Jamabandi enabling a person in whose favour order of mutation/Jamabandi is passed to only pay land revenue of the land in question, the restoration/delivery of possession by holding or treating that person as legitimate owner/custodian of the land basing upon Jamabandi alone, would in the opinion of this Court be ultra vires Articles 300A and 21 of the Constitution of India. Possession though only a semblance of title/ownership, that cannot be interfered with in such a casual and cavalier manner. 49. In view thereof, this Court would strike down the impugned Section 9 (1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 to the extent it confers power upon the Additional Collector “to dispossess the person whose Jamabandi has been cancelled and to put in possession the legitimate owner/custodian on such land on such terms as may appear to the Additional Collector to be fair and equitable” and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 for being ultra vires Article 300A of the Constitution of India, apart from being beyond the scope & ambit of Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII." 13. The facts of the above case is entirely different from the facts of the present case. The facts of the above case is entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the case of Ramowtar Lakhotia (Supra) , the Division Bench of this Court was considering the validity of provision of Section 9 (1) of the Act, 2011 in respect of cancellation of Jamabandi and after proper analysing the law, the Division Bench struck down the impugned Section 9 (1) of the Act, 2011 to the extent it confers power upon the Additional Collector “to dispossess the person whose Jamabandi has been cancelled and to put in possession the legitimate owner/custodian on such land on such terms as may appear to the Additional Collector to be fair and equitable” and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 for being ultra vires Article 300A of the Constitution of India, apart from being beyond the scope & ambit of Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII. The land in question related to the Khatiyani land, which is guided by the law of inheritance applicable in the case of the persons, who seeks mutation of the land upon transfer of the land or inherited the land. In the present case, the petitioners have purchased the land, which still remains the government land and the government has only parted with the possessionary right by settling it to the landless person in accordance with the provision of the Act applicable in respect of ancestor of vendor of the petitioner way back in the year 1976-77. All the above mentioned acts give possessionary right to be inheritable but restrain the settlee or his/her successor from transferring the land. 14. The ancestor of the vendor of the petitioner was landless and the same was settled by the government in his favour vide Settlement Case No. 21/1976-77, can not be transferred by way of executing a registered sale deed, in view of the provision of Section 9 of the Act, 1947, Section 14 (1)(i) (i) of the Act, 1954 and Section 27 (3) of the Act, 1961. The above provisions of the Acts prohibit transfer and, therefore, question of mutation in respect of those lands as per the provisions of the above mentioned acts, doesn't arise. 15. The above provisions of the Acts prohibit transfer and, therefore, question of mutation in respect of those lands as per the provisions of the above mentioned acts, doesn't arise. 15. In above background of the facts and the provisions contained in Section Section 9 of the Act, 1947, Section 14 (1)(i)(i) of the Act, 1954 and Section 27 (3) of the Act, 1961, I find the Sale Deed No. 7256 dated 07.11.2009 is required to be declared void instrument in accordance with law. On the basis of said sale deed, the land was mutated, which is against the authority of law. I don't find any infirmity either in the recommendation dated 04.03.2015 by the Circle Officer or the order dated 01.09.2018 contained in Memo No. 1042 passed by the Additional Collector, Kishanganj, who have recommended for cancellation of Jamabandi. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 16. There shall be no order as to cost.