Long-standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled through summary proceedings or without recourse to competent Civil Court.

The petitioners claimed ownership of 27.30 acres of land in Mauza Binja, Ranchi, originally settled by the ex-landlord with their father, Lal Prafulla Nath Shahdeo, via Hukumnama on 31.03.1945.

Following the vesting of Zamindari, the State recognized the father as a raiyat and accepted rent until 1990.

After their father's death in 2001, the petitioners applied for up-to-date rent receipts and online registration in Register-II.

Instead, the Circle Officer, Burmu, initiated "Suspicious Jamabandi Case No. 1422/2021-22," alleging the Jamabandi was suspicious and recommending its cancellation to the L.R.D.C.

A spot inspection by revenue officials on 19.02.2022 confirmed the petitioners’ possession of the land, excluding a small portion containing a dilapidated school.

1. Whether the revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to cancel a long-standing Jamabandi through summary proceedings.

2. Whether the initiation of a "Suspicious Jamabandi Case" against the petitioners was legally sustainable given the settled possession and prior recognition of tenancy.

Long-running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by revenue authorities in summary proceedings; such annulment requires a suit before a competent Civil Court, as established in Ramayan Yadav & Ors v. State of Bihar & Ors.

The Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, does not confer power on revenue authorities to annul Jamabandi as held in State of Jharkhand v. Izhar Hussain.

Once a Jamabandi is created, the State is duty-bound to accept rent and issue receipts as per Anil Kumar Bajaj v. State of Jharkhand.

The land settlement occurred on 31.03.1945, prior to the cut-off date of 01.01.1946 specified in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, thereby exempting it from inquiries under Section 4(h).

Since the State had recognized the petitioners' father as a tenant for decades and accepted rent until 1990, the Jamabandi attained "long-standing" status.

A 2022 spot inspection by the State’s own officials confirmed the petitioners' possession, yet the Circle Officer mechanically initiated cancellation proceedings.

Applying the Izhar Hussain precedent, revenue officers lack statutory authority under the 1973 Act to cancel such entries, rendering the "Suspicious Jamabandi" case an act without jurisdiction.

The Court directed Respondent No. 4 (Circle Officer, Burmu) to make the necessary online entries in Register-II and issue up-to-date rent receipts for the land-in-question to the petitioners.