Raghunath Sah vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15484 of 2022
======================================================
Sunita Rani Sah, Wife of late Raghunath Sah, Resident of Village-
Haflaganj,P.O.Sirnia, P.S. Mufasil, Katihar, District- Katihar,Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea at Purnea.
4. The Collector, Katihar, District-Katihar.
5. The Additional Collector, Katihar, District-Katihar.
6. The Circle Officer, Katihar, District-Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raju Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Raj, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC-19
Mr. Navnit Kumar, AC to GP-18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-06-2026
Heard Mr. Raju Giri, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mr. Harsh Vardhan, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, learned SC-19 assisted by
Mr. Navnit Kumar, learned AC to GP-18.
2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition
praying for the following reliefs:-
(I) To issue an appropriate
writ/order/ direction, directing the
respondents to produce the order (if any) by

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
2/10
which the Jamabandi No. 2858 in regard to
25 decimal (0.25 acres) of land and
Jamabandi No. 2859 in regard to 53
decimals (0.52 acres) of Khata no. 1406,
plot no. 1263 Mauza Sirnia, Thana- Katihar,
District-Katihar, of petitioner has been
cancelled and then to issue a writ of
certiorari for setting aside the order by
which the said Jamabandi of the petitioner
has been cancelled.
(II). To issue an appropriate
writ / order / direction, in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the entire proceeding
of Misc. Case No. 14/2017-18, on the basis
of which in purported exercise of power
without issuing any Notice and without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, the Jamabandi of the petitioner
has been cancelled.
(III) To issue an appropriate
writ / order / direction, in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to
immediately stop the illegal construction
being done on the lands of the petitioner and
to allow the petitioner to continue with their
peaceful possession on the lands in question.
(IV). To any other relief or
reliefs for which the Petitioners are found to
be entitled in the facts and circumstances of
the case.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
3/10
3. The present matter concerns with an order by
which Jamabandi No. 2858 regarding 25 decimals of land and
jamabandi No. 2859 regarding 53 decimal of land of Khata No.
1406, plot No 1263 Mauza Sirnia, Thana- Katihar, District-
Katihar, which has been cancelled by the authorities.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that father of
petitioner Bishwanath Sah purchased 25 decimal of land for
valuable consideration from Sant Lal Paswan after obtaining
permission from Deputy Collector, Katihar vide registered sale
deed dated 18.12.1967 and similarly the mother of petitioner,
Gulo Devi purchased 53 decimal of land from Sant Lal Paswan
on the same date. It is thereafter that father and mother of
petitioner while in possession of aforesaid land got it mutated in
their names and Jamabandi No. 2858 and 2859 respectively
were created in their name. Even the rent receipts were obtained
by them. Thereafter, upon their death, Raghunath Sah, the
petitioner as sole legal heir came into the possession of the land
in question. It is asserted that the said land is in cultivable
possession but when petitioner went to pay rent of the said land,
Karamchari & Circle Inspector disclosed that Jamabandi of
this land has been cancelled and some construction under
government scheme is being done.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
4/10
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that an
application was preferred before DM, Katihar praying to stop
construction since no notice was ever served upon him nor his
land was acquired by the government. The Collector, Katihar
passed in Misc. Case No. 14/2017-18 whereby Jamabandi No.
1626 and 1627 of the said land has been cancelled on the ground
that settled land could not be transferred.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that settlement of dead persons has been cancelled, which is
illegal and valuable rights have been accrued for 55 years and
no notice has been issued for hearing the parties prior to
cancellation of jamabandi . It is also submitted that petitioner
has obtained information under Right to Information Act that
jamabandi of petitioner has been cancelled and the land belongs
to the State of Bihar.
7. It is next submitted that under Section 9 of Bihar
Mutation Act, 2011 only the Additional Collector is empowered
to cancel jamabandi but the same was done by Collector which
is illegal. Even the revision against the order of Collector was
preferred before Divisional Commissioner, Purnea which is not
maintainable as it is against the original order rather it should
have been against the appellate order.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
5/10
8. It is on the basis of Rejoinder on behalf of
petitioner wherein it is submitted that settlement made have
been cancelled by State government of a person, who is already
dead and any such order passed is nullity in the eyes of law.
9. To buttress their arguments, the learned counsel
for petitioner has relied on State of Bihar v Harendra Nath
Tiwari 2015(1) PLJR 606 to contend that any order of
cancellation of jamabandi passed by Collector is an illegality as
he had no jurisdiction and this power rests solely with
Additional Collector. In fact, the jamabandi took place back in
1946 and the Act has come into force in 2011, valuable rights
have accrued to parties and cannot be unsettled after
generations.
10. The learned counsel has also relied on a
judgment passed in the case of Abu Talib v State of Bihar
reported in 2022 (3) BLJ 133 to contend that land given by
Bandobasti to predecessors of petitioner cannot be cancelled as
no order can be passed against dead persons. It is also held that
at least an opportunity for hearing and notice must be served in
regards to land in question and without any enquiry any claim
made by government over the land shall be quashed.
11. It is the case of the respondents that Misc. Case

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
6/10
bearing No. 14/17-18 has been opened by Circle Officer,
Katihar on the basis of application obtained from one Narayan
Paswan, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Sirnia according to which
plot No. 1263 covering area 2.53 acre of Khata No. 1406 had
been settled to Santu Paswan (deceased). It is submitted that
settlee was issueless and no rent had been paid since 1976 and
settlee sold 1 acre out of the settled land 2.53 acre, whereafter
purchaser had got his name mutated. It is next submitted that
matter was put up before DCLR, Katihar recommending
cancellation of settlement and after examining it was put up
before SDO, Katihar. It is also submitted that proposal for
cancellation of jamabandi was submitted before Additional
collector as well as Collector, Katihar which was lawfully
cancelled. It is lastly submitted that under Section 9 of the Act,
Additional Collector is basic court regarding cancellation of
jamabandi and the Collector is the Appellate authority.
12. The State through Supplementary Counter
Affidavit on behalf of respondent no.4, DM Katihar, has
contended as to why, without initiating the proceeding against
petitioner, the jamabandi has been cancelled. It is submitted that
in compliance with an order, a three member enquiry team was
constituted vide letter No. 1963/ vidhi dated 17.09.2024 and a

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
7/10
joint report has been submitted vide letter No. 1643/Ra dated
28.09.2024. It is submitted that that original land settlement
holder Santu Paswan died issueless and had sold 1 acre out of
2.53 acres land, which was in violation of government
provisions as there is a bar on sale and other type of transfer of
settled government land. It is also submitted that the then
Rajaswa Karmachari, C.O. Katihar and ADM, Katihar
recommended cancellation of settlement of land with Santu
Paswan and also for cancellation of Jamabandi No. 1626 and
1627 upon which DM, Katihar passed the order accordingly and
registered it in name of Bihar government. It is lastly submitted
that Jamabandi No. 2858 and 2859 cancelled by CO, Katihar
vide letter No. 3540 dated 03.10.2024 with attested copy of
Misc. Case No. 15/17-18 (Ann-3).
13. The learned AC to GP-18 thus contends that
since a settlee cannot further alienate the lands settled in his
favour, therefore the j amabandi was cancelled after due expiry
and hence no illegality has been committed.
14. Upon hearing the arguments forwarded by
learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Raju Giri, who appears on behalf of
the petitioner and learned SC-19 for the State, this Court finds
that the order contained in Annexure-4 passed jointly by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
8/10
Additional Commissioner and the Collector cancelling the
jamabandi of the vendors late Bishwanath Sah and late Gulo
Devi, father and mother respectively of the husband of the
petitioner.
15. From perusal of the said order, it would be
evident that the said order had cancelled the original jamabandi
nos. 1626 and 1627 which were opened in the named of vendors
of late Bishwanath Sah and late Gulo Devi.
16. The said order nowhere contains any reference
to the subsequent jamabandi opened in the name of late
Bishwanath Sah and late Gulo Devi, however, in the RTI sought
by the petitioner it has been informed that in pursuance to the
order passed by the Collector in Cancellation Case No. 14 of
2017-18, the said jamabandi no. 2858 and 2859 are also been
cancelled and the same has been recorded under the
Government of Bihar.
17. This Court has noted the fact that the
jamabandi created in favour of the father of late Raghunath
Singh was created way back in the year 1987 and it had
continued thereon and the petitioner was also submitting rent for
the same, however, without giving any opportunity, the said
cancellation had been carried out.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
9/10
18. From perusal of Annexure-3, which has been
brought through the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of
the District Magistrate, Katihar, it is also evident that the
jamabandi nos. 2858 and 2859 in the name of the father and
mother of late Raghunath Sah was cancelled by the Circle
Officer, Katihar, which to the understanding of this Court could
not have been done as the recommendation for cancellation was
only with respect to jamabandi nos. 1626 and 1627.
19. It is a settled law that longstanding jamabandi
cannot be cancelled.
20. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of “Maya Devi
& Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in (2014) 3
PLJR, 584 and also in the case of State of Bihar through
Collector, Siwan vs. Harendra Nath Tiwary reported in 2015
(1) PLJR 606 , this Court has way back decided that even if the
title of the land owner is disputed by the State, the only remedy
the State has is to file civil case and not to cancel jamabandi in a
summary proceeding that too without giving notice.
21. One paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
passed in the case of Maya Devi (Supra) is to be taken note of :-
“The result of these three
progressive stages is that if the State wants the

Patna High Court CWJC No.15484 of 2022 dt.18-06-2026
10/10
petitioners’ lands or the lands on which the
petitioners have been residing for last 50 years,
they must pay due compensation and take action
in accordance with the provisions of the new
Land Acquisition Act. If they intend to cancel
the Jamabandi then it is for them to move the
Civil Court for a declaration that the alleged
settlement and/or Jamabandi is illegal and
cannot be accepted and let the title of the State
be so declared but till such time the dispute is
resolved, the petitioners cannot be evicted by
the State in any manner nor can just
compensation for acquisition be denied.”
22. In view of the aforesaid, the entire proceeding
of Misc Case No. 14 of 2017-18 is hereby quashed.
23. It is directed that the jamabandi nos. 2858 and
2859 be restored. The State, however, shall be at liberty to
pursue the matter before an appropriate forum if they are so
advised.
24. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 23.06.2026.
Transmission Date