ASHOK KUMAR SINGH vs COLLECTARIATE

Court: Jharkhand High Court
Case type: WRIT PETITIONS
Decided on: 07-04-2026

<div> 2026:JHHC:9830 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 ---- Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Late Sitaram Singh, resident of village – Gajure, PO – Dhabatham, PS – Chandwara, District - Koderma .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, PO, PS and District – Koderma 3. Additional Collector, Koderma, PO, PS and District – Koderma 4. Circle Officer, Chandwara, PO, PS and District – Koderma 5. Mrs. Dhan Laxmi Store works through its Proprietor – Vishnu Kumar Khatore, son of Pyare Lal Khatore, resident of Taratand, Ward No.V, PO and PS – Jhumri Telaiya, District – Koderma .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate :- Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate :- Mr. Anurag Chandra, Advocate For the State :- Mrs. Shalini Sahdeo, Advocate For Respondent No.5 :- Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, Advocate ---- 29/ 07.04.2026 Heard Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mrs. Shalini Sahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 31.12.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma in Misc. Case No.1 of 2010 whereby he has passed the order for cancellation of long W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --1-- 2026:JHHC:9830 running jamabandi standing in the name of petitioner with respect to the lands measuring an area of 2.10 acres out of Plot No.4617 of Khata No.127 situated at Village – Tham, P.S. – Chandwara, District – Koderma. 3. Mr. Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the lands measuring an area of 3.20 acres of Plot No.4617 of Khata No.127 situated at village – Tham, PS – Chandwara, District – Koderma was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of Sobron Thakur, the vendor of the petitioner in the year 1953 by virtue of customary hukumnama coupled with grant of rent receipt followed by delivery of possession and the settlee came into possession over the same. He further submits that after vesting of the said land to the vendor of the petitioner he went on making payment of rent to the Revenue Authority and rent receipts were duly issued acknowledging the possession of the vendor of the petitioner over the aforementioned land by Revenue Authority. He then submits that the petitioner purchased the aforesaid lands by virtue of two registered deeds of sale dated 22.02.2002 and 29.11.2002 for a valuable consideration from Sobron Thakur and others and thereafter the petitioner came into peaceful possession over the same and thereafter the petitioner filed petition before the Circle Officer, Chandwara for mutation of his name in the revenue record with respect to the aforementioned land which was registered as Mutation Case No.395/2003-04 and the Circle Officer after making due enquiry on the factum of possession and W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --2-- 2026:JHHC:9830 semblance of title mutated the name of the petitioner with respect to the aforementioned land and thereafter the petitioner is regularly making the rent. 4. He next submits that Additional Collector after making due enquiry, passed an order on 22.05.2002 in Misc. Case No.06 of 2001 for continuance of jamabandi in the name of the vendor of the petitioner with respect to the said land and against there no appeal was preferred. He also submits that respondent No.5 namely M/s. Dhan Laxmi Stone Works filed Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2010 before the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma for cancellation of jamabandi with respect to the land measuring an area of 2.20 acres out of Plot No.4617 of Khata No.127 situated at village – Tham, PS – Chandwara, District – Koderma alleging therein that the petitioner has illegally got his name mutated in the revenue record. 5. He next submits that the petitioner appeared in the said miscellaneous case and filed his show cause stating therein that the petitioner had purchased the land in a legal and valid manner. He next submits that the learned Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 31.12.2012 has illegally cancelled long running jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner with respect to the land measuring an area of 2.20 acres out of Plot No.4617 of Khata No.127 situated at village – Tham, PS – Chandwara, District – Koderma. He next submits that the said order has been passed by learned Deputy Commissioner in absence of not having any competency of passing such order that too in a case in which long W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --3-- 2026:JHHC:9830 running jamabandi has been established. To buttress this argument, he relied in the case of Jamaluddin Ahmad vrs. S.D.O., Khagaria & Ors. reported in (1979) BBCJ 605 (PAT) . He also relied in the case of Jitan Mahto versus State of Bihar reported in 2004 0 Supreme (Jhk) 170 . He next relied in the case of Doman Mahto versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. in L.P.A. No.218 of 2019. He lastly relied in the case of Tarun Kumar Dutta vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2022 (1) JBCJ 253 (HC). 6. Relying on the above judgments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in absence of any jurisdiction or to cancel the jamabandi the power is exercised that too without jurisdiction and in view of that impugned order may kindly be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs claimed by him. She further submits that learned Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order after taking the entire documents, materials and evidences which were placed before him and the said order is well reasoned order. She then submits that total area of concerned plot is 39.80 acres which is a Gair Mazurwa Khas land as per the survey record of rights and the nature of land is recorded as jangal jhari. She next submits that mining lease was granted of a portion of the plot for the first time on 23.01.1984 in favour of respondent No.5 W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --4-- 2026:JHHC:9830 and the same was extended from time to time till February, 2025. She also submits that the lease land is not a raiyati land or a private land of any individual, thus there is no question of infringement of any fundamental right of the petitioner. She next submits that the respondent No.5 as a lessee held possession on the said lands since 1984 till February, 2025. She next submits that on the basis of forged and fabricated documents the petitioner herein has started claiming his right contending that he has purchased 2.10 acres of land out of Plot No.4617 which is actually a portion of the lease hold land which was granted to the respondent No.5. 8. She next submits that the petitioner was not in possession and therefore the jamabandi of the petitioner has rightly been cancelled. She next submits that the petitioner has managed to open a demand in his name between 22.10.2002 to 29.11.2002 contending inter alia that he has purchased the land by register sale deed from the original settlee. She next submits that in spite of opportunity provided to the petitioner he failed to produce any documents or a chit of paper with respect to the alleged settlement. She next submits that even the hukumnama on the basis of which it has been argued by the petitioner that it has been settled in favour of the Sobrein Thakur has not been produced before the Revenue Authorities. She next submits that an enquiry was conducted by learned Additional Collector, Koderma and the District Mining Officer, Koderma who inspected the spot and file a joint enquiry report regarding nature of the land. W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --5-- 2026:JHHC:9830 9. She next submits that in Register II the entire area of Plot No.4617 which is 39.80 acres has been recorded as Gair Mazurwa Khas land which belongs to the State. She next submits that in connivance with other authorities the petitioner has got the mutation in his favour and further he is not in possession of the land. She next submits that pursuant to the order of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma has filed a personal affidavit wherein he has also stated that the land in question is Gair Mazurwa Khas land (nature forest) and the mutation of petitioner has been done without his possession over the land which is the reason of litigation and the revenue officer/staffs have already retired who have mutated the land in question in favour of the petitioner and enquiry report has been brought as Annexure-8 to the personal affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koderma. She next submits that on the basis of the forged document jamabandi has been created and the authorities are competent to pass the order and there is no illegality in the order, as such the writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 10. Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 was provided the lease hold right since 1984 to February, 2025. He submits that when mining operation was being disturbed by the petitioner herein the respondent No.5 was compelled to move before the Deputy Commissioner by way of filing the Misc. Case No.1/2010 and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. He further submits W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --6-- 2026:JHHC:9830 that learned Deputy Commissioner has taken into consideration that not even a single chit of paper has been brought before the authority concerned to establish the settlement in favour of the vendor of the petitioner namely Sobrein Thakur. He then submits that if based on the forged document jamabandi has been created that too when nothing has been produced before the authority concerned the Revenue Authority is competent to pass the appropriate order which has been done by the Revenue Authority. To buttress this argument, he relied in the case of Jagdeo Mahto versus The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and Others reported in (2009) Supreme (Jhk) 208 wherein at paragraph Nos.21 to 24 it has been held as under : 21. In the present case we find from the orders passed by the revenue authorities, which was challenged by the writ petitioner in the writ petition, that in fact, Jamabandi was earlier opened by a Karamchari and that also without any order of a competent authority. The Commissioner in his order has given finding that the writ petitioner’s claim was based on sada ‘Hukumnama’ in respect of raiyati land whose veracity could not be adjudged. It was further held by him that the petitioner could not submit a chit of paper with regard to his acquisition of land in auction sale. Therefore, we find the revenue authorities passed their orders for cancellation of Jamabandi after they found the same was opened by a Karamchari without any valid order from the competent authority. In other words, the order for creating Jamabandi was passed by a person who was not authorised under the law and as such the same was without jurisdiction. 22. According to us if an order is found to have been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction or when such order is found to be absolutely illegal based on the apparent error on law or facts or when it is found to be perverse not based on record then certainly in such cases Jamabandi running or standing in the name of a particular person can be cancelled by a competent authority but of course after giving proper notice and opportunity W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --7-- 2026:JHHC:9830 of hearing to the party who would be adversely affected. It is a settled law that any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Hasham Abbas Sayyad-versus- Usman Abbas Sayyad& Others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 355” in which it has been held as under:- “The core question is as to whether an order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. It will be so. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res- judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the tribunal/court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice, being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to.” It has not been pointed out to us that there is any bar under the law in cancelling the Jamabandi running or standing in the name of any particular person. In the aforesaid three judgments of the learned Single Judge in the cases of “Dilip Kumar Mahto-versus-The State of Bihar & Others, reported in 2001 (1) JLJR 75, “Smt. Gulbasi Devi & Others-versus-State of Bihar &Others, reported in 2003 (3) JLJR 793”, “Jitan Mahto & Another-versus-State of Bihar & 5 Others, reported in2004 (1) JLJR 718, we find that no reason has been assigned in those judgments as to why the Jamabandi running or standing in the name of particular person in an appropriate case, cannot be cancelled. Therefore, we do not approve the view expressed in the aforesaid three judgments of this court referred in this para. 24. In view of the discussions above, we hold that Jamabandi standing in the name of a particular person can be cancelled in appropriate cases such as when it is brought to the notice of the revenue authorities that the order for creating Jamabandi has been passed by an authority who has no authority or jurisdiction at all or where the same is found to be based on the apparent error of record/facts or on law but of course, after giving prior notice and an opportunity of hearing to the concerned person, whose interest would be adversely affected. 11. Relying on the above judgment, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that if any order is passed without jurisdiction that is a nullity and in view of that this writ petition may W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --8-- 2026:JHHC:9830 kindly be dismissed. 12. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties the Court has gone through the materials on record, including the impugned order passed by learned Deputy Commissioner. 13. The petitioner herein has claimed his possession on the basis of settlement made in favour of Sobrein Thakur pursuant to that settlement Sobrein Thakur has sold the land in question to the petitioner by deed which has been annexed as Annexure-1 series. In the registered sale deed dated 29.11.2002, Sobrein Thakur has shown as a vendor and the petitioner has shown as a vendee, however, the petitioner in the sale deed only has shown receipt number and Register II are disclosed and apart from that the other descriptions in the said deed are missing of the land in question. It has been contended by the petitioner that 3.20 acres of land was settled to Sobrein Thakur and Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Misc. Appeal Case No.06 of 2001 passed the order of continuing jamabandi in favour of vendor of petitioner and thereafter he has sold the land to the petitioner and thereafter the land was mutated in favour of the petitioner, however, before the Deputy Commissioner in spite of the direction issued the petitioner has not produced any hukumnama and the settlement relevant documents and even not filed any chit of paper to support his claim. Learned Deputy Commissioner has found that respondent No.5 was provided the lease since 1984 and that continued up to February 2025. W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --9-- 2026:JHHC:9830 Learned Deputy Commissioner has also found that the Additional Collector was also not read regarding the report sent by Circle Officer, Chauparan. In these backgrounds, the Deputy Commissioner has found that the petitioner has failed to prove his bonafide and the land in question is of Gair Mazurwa Jungle Jhadi that is disclosed in Khatiyan. The petitioner did not produce any paper before the authority concerned and thereafter the said order has been passed. 14. There is no doubt that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a routine way as judgments relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of Jamaluddin Ahmad vrs. S.D.O., Khagaria & Ors., Jitan Mahto versus State of Bihar, Doman Mahto versus The State of Jharkhand and Ors. and Tarun Kumar Dutta vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (supras), however, the judgments are applicable in the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court is in agreement that if a valid jamabandi is created which cannot be cancelled by the Revenue Authority in a routine way, however, at the same time if it has been brought to the knowledge of the authority that it has been fraudulently done and it is proved the matter would be otherwise and the authority concerned can pass the appropriate order. 15. Opening of Jamabandi being administrative in nature can be reviewed or revisited where it is without any order or it has been passed without jurisdiction or ex facie it is collusive or fraudulent in nature. W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --10-- 2026:JHHC:9830 16. What has been discussed here-in-above, the petitioner herein has failed to produce any document before the authorities concerned with regard to the settlement including the sada hukumnama of Sobrein Thakur or any other chit of paper. 17. Reference may be made to the judgments passed in the cases of Mahabir Kanshi v. State of Jharkhand, reported in JCR 2008 (4) 429 and Yubraj Tiwary & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 JCR 170 (Jhr). It has been observed in the case of Abdul Jabbar v. State of Bihar and others, reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Pat 22 in paragraph 4 thereof, which reads as under: “4. In my opinion as a general proposition it cannot be said Jamabandi once created can never be cancelled. In Khiru Gope's case this Court merely has held following the earlier decisions of this Court in Harihar Singh's case and Jamaluddin Ahmad's case that if cancellation of Jamabandi amounts to cancellation of settlement; such power cannot be exercised. However, it may be mentioned that another Division Bench of this court in Gobind Singh v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1978 NOC 88 has held that orders of mutation are administrative orders and thus the same can be reviewed. Unfortunately the aforementioned Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Singh's Case AIR 1978 NOC 88 was not brought to the notice of this Court deciding Khiru Gope's case. In this situation in my opinion, it cannot be said as a general proposition of the law that a Jamabandi created can never be cancelled. It was reiterated in 2009(2)JCR 153(Jhr) Jagdeo Mahto Vs Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh that mutation proceeding is not held before a court of law and are not judicial proceeding but are administrative in nature. Thus, there is no bar under law in cancelling the same. It was held that jamabandi standing in the name of a particular person can be cancelled in appropriate cases, where it is brought to the notice of the revenue authorities that the order of opening of jamabandi is without jurisdiction. W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --11-- 2026:JHHC:9830 Cancellation of jamabandi on the ground of fraud was upheld in Shakuntala Patodia VS State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2015 2 JCR 281.” 18. In view of the above judgment, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner has no power under any circumstances to cancel Jamabandi, cannot be accepted. If a Jamabandi has been opened without a formal order or pursuant to an order passed without jurisdiction or obtained through fraud or collusion, it is well within the authority of the revenue officials to revisit and cancel the same. Fraud vitiates all proceedings and renders them a nullity, as has been held in the case of Meghmala and others v. G. Narasimha Reddy and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 . 19. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, no case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. 20. However, it is open to the petitioner, if so advised, may move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction to establish his right, title and interest and if any suit is being filed the State will also put his case in the said suit. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 07.04.2026 Sangam/ A.F.R. W.P. (C.) No. 583 of 2013 --12-- </div>