Patna HC Upholds Cancellation Of Buyers’ Jamabandi, Says Heirs Could Not Freely Transfer Land Settled To Landless Persons

In 1976–77, 7.32 acres at Mauza Simalbari, Kishanganj, were settled in equal shares in the names of four persons, including Bibi Aysha Khatoon.

After her death in 1980, her heirs inherited her 1.83-acre share and conveyed it to the appellants by registered sale deed dated 7 November 2009.

The appellants’ names were subsequently entered in the revenue records, and they claimed possession and payment of rent.

In proceedings concerning cancellation of the settlement, the Collector cancelled the original Parcha and the consequential jamabandi by order dated 15 June 2021.

The appellants’ writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, who held that the transfer was barred by statutory restrictions applicable to the original settlement.

The appellants challenged that decision in this intra-court appeal.

The Court relied on Section 9 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, Section 14 of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, and Section 27(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, as provisions restricting transfer of land settled under the respective enactments.

It held that inheritance does not, by itself, confer an unrestricted power to transfer land subject to an applicable statutory prohibition, and a registered sale deed cannot override such a prohibition.

Mutation is fiscal in purpose and does not create or extinguish title; the Court relied on Sawarni v. Inder Kaur, (1996) 6 SCC 223, and Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh, (1997) 7 SCC 137.

It also considered Ramowtar Lakhotia v. State of Bihar, C.W.J.C. No. 16494 of 2018, decided 10 April 2024, which held that summary cancellation of jamabandi does not itself authorise dispossession and delivery of possession, but does not validate a transfer otherwise prohibited by law.

The Court treated the original settlement as one governed by statutory restrictions on transfer and concluded that the heirs’ inheritance did not remove those restrictions.

The appellants’ registered deed, subsequent mutation, and payment of rent therefore could not establish an unrestricted right if the transfer contravened the law applicable to the settlement.

Ramowtar Lakhotia did not assist the appellants because it concerned dispossession through summary revenue proceedings, a distinct question from the validity of the transfer.

The Court further held that the original settlee’s death and the passage of time did not, by themselves, extinguish a statutory restriction.

It did not make a separate conclusive finding on the appellants’ procedural objections concerning notice or the authority’s jurisdiction; it stated that the validity of the proceedings must be examined by reference to the statutory authority and applicable notice-and-hearing requirements.

It dismissed the appeal and disposed of any pending applications.