Revenue authorities may cancel Jamabandi entries created through fraud, collusion, or without jurisdiction.

The petitioners challenged the proceedings of Miscellaneous Case No. 2/2008-09 and the subsequent order dated 04.12.2008 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC), Sadar, Hazaribagh, which cancelled the Jamabandi standing in the petitioners' names since 1994-95

The Jamabandi pertained to 0.81 acres of land under Khata No. 57 in Village Harhad

The cancellation was initiated upon a petition by private respondents (Nos. 5 to 9), leading the Circle Officer to recommend action on the grounds that the Jamabandi was wrongly created

The LRDC discovered that the purported Rent Assessment Case (No. 2/1994-95) was never registered in the Circle Office records, the Khata/Khewat correlations were incorrect, and the petitioners were not descendants of the original raiyat

1. Whether the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has the authority to cancel a Jamabandi once it has been created and has been running for a significant period

2. Whether a Jamabandi created through fraud, collusion, or administrative irregularity can be reviewed and set aside by revenue authorities

The Court held that the opening of a Jamabandi is administrative in nature and can be reviewed if it was created without jurisdiction, without a formal order, or via fraud and collusion.

It relied on Mahabir Kanshi v. State of Jharkhand (2008) and Yubraj Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand (2010) to establish the reviewability of such administrative actions

Further, relying on Abdul Jabbar v. State of Bihar (1992) and Jagdeo Mahto v. Commissioner (2009), the court affirmed that mutation proceedings are not judicial and thus face no legal bar against cancellation in appropriate cases

Finally, it applied the principle from Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy (2010) that fraud vitiates all proceedings and renders them a nullity

The Court analyzed the findings of the LRDC, noting significant procedural and factual discrepancies in the creation of the petitioners' Jamabandi.

Specifically, the "Form-M" used for the Jamabandi contained an incorrect Khewat number (4/3 instead of 4/4 for Khata 57), and the underlying Rent Assessment Case was non-existent in the official register

The Court observed that the petitioners failed to produce evidence of their ancestral link to the original raiyat, supporting the LRDC’s conclusion that the Jamabandi was created fraudulently

Connecting these facts to the 'Rule of Law', the Court reasoned that since the Jamabandi was a product of fraud and administrative irregularity, the revenue authorities were well within their jurisdiction to revisit and cancel it, as fraud nullifies the entire process

It concluded that if a Jamabandi is opened without a formal order, through fraud, or by an authority lacking jurisdiction, it can be cancelled by revenue officials

Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitioners' challenge and dismissed the writ petition