Long-Standing Jamabandi Cannot Be Cancelled Summarily; State Must Move Civil Court to Dispute Title

The petitioners claimed ownership of 40.34 acres of land in Plot No. 1702, Khata No. 113, Village Tetari, based on a 1912 registered sale deed from the descendant of an Ex-Zamindar

Although recorded as "Gairmazarua Khas," the land had been subject to private Jamabandis, rent payments, and even official land acquisitions in 1954 and 2019

In 2020, the Circle Officer initiated Jamabandi cancellation proceedings, labeling the land as ‘Sairat’ (government water body) for the "Jal Jeevan Hariyali" scheme and commenced excavation

During the pendency of this writ, the Additional Collector cancelled the Jamabandis on 10.01.2026 via I.A. No. 1 of 2026

The State contended the land was a "Jalkar" (fishery) and that the petitioners had alternative remedies

1. Whether the State can summarily cancel long-standing Jamabandis and excavate land claimed as private property without following due process or seeking civil court intervention.

2. Whether the availability of an alternative statutory remedy (appeal) ousts the jurisdiction of the Writ Court when the authorities act with a lack of jurisdiction or overreach judicial propriety.

3. Whether the impugned order of Jamabandi cancellation passed during the pendency of the writ petition is legally sustainable.

The court applied the principle that a long-standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by revenue authorities through summary proceedings; the State must instead seek a declaration of title from a Civil Court, as established in Maya Devi & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2014)

Regarding maintainability, the court relied on Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India (2025) and Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes, holding that alternative remedies do not oust writ jurisdiction in cases of jurisdictional error or violation of fundamental rights

It also invoked the "cardinal principle" from the Full Bench in The King v. Parmanand and Others (1949) that executive officials must not take actions that prejudge or disturb a matter sub-judice before a court

The court found significant discrepancies in the State's evidence, noting that the 'Sairat' register cited a different plot (No. 761) and a much smaller area (5.83 acres) than the disputed land (40.34 acres), suggesting a post-facto attempt to justify the excavation

The entry "Man" in the Khatiyan could denote seasonal wetlands used privately, and the history of registered transfers and rent receipts supported the petitioners' raiyati claims

Critically, the court observed that the Additional Collector’s order to cancel the Jamabandi was passed while the High Court was actively seized of the matter

The court reasoned that such an act was a "truculent" overreach of executive authority intended to circumvent judicial scrutiny

Relegating the petitioners to an appellate authority after five years of litigation would be futile and unjust

The Court allowed the writ petition and I.A. No. 1 of 2026, setting aside the Jamabandi cancellation order dated 10.01.2026 as illegal and an overreach of authority

The State was directed to refill the excavated portions of the petitioners' private lands and restore the earth