Jharkhand High Court
Dhani Gope [Aged About 83 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Chief ... on 20 February, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4258 of 2023
Dhani Gope [aged about 83 years], Son of-Late Gurde Gope @
Gurdi Yadav, Resident of: 105, Village-Mahuatand, Post Office:
Jhumri Talaiya, Police Station: Telaiya, District:-Koderma,
Jharkhand, PIN-825409 ... Petitioner
-V E R S U S-
1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary,
Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Post
Office- Dhurwa, Police Station- Jagganathpur, District-
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
2. Principal Secretary/Secretary, Revenue, Registration &
Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand,
Project Building, Dhurwa, Post Office-Dhurwa, Police
Statoin- Jaganathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. Commissioner, Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, Post
Office-Hazaribagh, Police Station- Hazaribag, District-
Hazaribag, Jharkhand.
4. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma, Post Office-Koderma,
Police Station-Koderma, District-Koderma, Jharkhand.
5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Koderma, Post Office-Koderma,
Police Station-Koderma, District-Koderma, Jharkhand.
6. Additional Collector, Koderma, Post Office-Koderma, Police
Staton-Koderma, District-Koderma, Jharkhand.
7. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Koderma, Post Office-
Koderma, Police Station- Koderma, District-Koderma,
Jharkhand.
8. Circle Officer, Koderma, Post Office-Koderma, Police
Station-Jhumri Telaiya, Police Station-Telaiya, District-
Koderma, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----
For the petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate
For the Respondent
Nos. 1 to 8 : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
C.A.V ON 02.12.2024 PRONOUNCED ON 20/02/2025
The instant writ application has been preferred by
the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the entire
proceeding being Sandhyathmak Jamabandi Case No. 26 of
2020-21 (impugned proceedings) along with the impugned
order dated 23.12.2022 initiated against the petitioner on the
ground that the entire proceedings are in violation to the
principles of natural justice and is without jurisdiction.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the
land forming subject matter of the instant petition is situated
within Mouza-Yadutnad, Khata No. 1/50 appertaining to Plot
No. 97/638, Plot No. 97/639 and Plot No. 97/640 (hereinafter
referred to as the scheduled land). The scheduled land was
settled in the favour of petitioner by the then Manager of the
Estate, one Mr. B.P Singh vis-à-vis Hukumnama dated
15.10.1947. The Hukumnama was followed by the issuance of
a rent receipt and delivery of effective raiyati possession.
Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner remained in possession over the scheduled property
for a period of 12 (twelve) years and acquired the status of an
occupancy raiyat.
Once the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into effect,
the respondents recognized the raiyati status of the petitioner
by opening a Jamabandi in his name in the year 1954-55. The
State government has accepted the rent from the petitioner
and receipts are being issued in his name.
Learned counsel has further submitted that a notice
dated 27.01.2012 was received in the name of the petitioner
with respect to Sandhyahmak Jamabandi Case No. 12 of 2011-
12. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Circle
Officer, Koderma and submitted all the necessary documents
after which no further proceedings were undertaken. A fresh
notice was issued in the name of the petitioner on 4.1.2021.
The petitioner gave a reply to the aforesaid notice. However,
without considering the reply given by the petitioner, the
Revenue Official submitted his report with a recommendation
to initiate proceedings for cancellation of Jamabandi as against
the petitioner. It was on basis of this report that the impugned
proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner. A notice
dated 7.9.2022 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him
to submit the documents with respect to the scheduled land.
The petitioner, in conformity with the notice appeared before
respondent No. 4 and submitted his reply. However, without
considering the reply and without holding any enquiry,
respondent no. 4, directed the cancellation of the Jamabandi of
the petitioner vide its order dated 23.12.2022 (impugned
order).
On the basis of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for
the petitioner has submitted that the impugned proceedings
are barred by res judicata. He has also submitted that the
order is without jurisdiction and is contrary to Section 4(h) of
the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as the Revenue Officers
cannot interfere with long-standing Jamabandi. Lastly, it has
been contented that the impugned order was passed without
proper opportunity to the Petitioner and the impugned order is
fit to be set aside was violation of the principles of natural
justice.
Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement
rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Dornan Mahto v.
State of Jharkhand and Ors (2024 (1) JLJR 289) to contend
that the entire proceedings fail for want of jurisdiction. The
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dornan Mahto v.
State of Jharkhand and Ors (supra) has held that the Deputy
Commissioner has no power to initiate proceedings for
cancellation of jamabandi rather has the power to annul only
such transfers which has been made after 1st of January 1946
to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Further in the case of Gopal Mishra v. State of
Jharkhand and Ors (2019 (3) JBCJ 539), it has been held
that a long standing Jamabandi running in favour of an
individual cannot be annulled under Section 4(h) of the Bihar
Land Reforms Act, 1950. In case of any dispute with respect to
the right, title and interest, the only remedy with the State is to
approach the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned
counsel had further strengthened this submission by placing
reliance on in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Izhar
Hussain (2024 (2) JBCJ 317), wherein the Division Bench of
this Court held that Revenue Authorities have no jurisdiction
to annul a long standing Jamabandi by resorting to Section
4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the only remedy
available with the State Government is to approach the Civil
Court of competent jurisdiction.
Lastly, reference has been made to the judgment of
Antardhari Sao v. State of Jharkhand (2024 (2) JBCJ 609)
to submit that even though no time limit has been prescribed
under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950; any
action by the State has to be within 'reasonable time'.
3. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the
petitioner cannot claim any right, title and interest over the
scheduled property on basis of a Sada Hukumnama unless the
same is submitted by the appropriate returns.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Khalsa
report submitted by the petitioner appears to be forged and
fabricated. It has been submitted that that the proceedings
have been initiated in accordance with the directions contained
in letters dated 13.5.2016, 8.6.2017 and 21.12.2017. The
directions state that the State Government has taken
cognizance of several matters, wherein the land of the
government has been usurped by various individuals. In the
light of above, the District Administration has been empowered
to annul Jamabandi in exercise of the powers under Section
4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It has been further
submitted that the scheduled land is gair mazurwa khas in
nature and as such the same belongs to the government.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has defended the
submissions of the respondent and submitted that the action
has been taken to serve the larger interest.
5. Based on the above contentions, the issues for
adjudication before this Court are framed as under:-
1) Whether the Respondent has the power to annul the
jamabandi and/or long standing jamabandi in exercise of
powers under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
1950?
2) Whether the Respondent authorities are competent to
render a finding with respect to the genuineness of the
khalsa receipts and other documents created in favour of
the Petitioner ?
3) Whether proceedings for cancellation of jamabandi can be
initiated after a lapse of 68 (sixty-eight) years ?
6. This Court has considered the pleadings and submissions
of parties. It is no longer res integra, that Section 4(h) of the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not confer any jurisdiction
upon the revenue authorities to annul jamabandi let alone a
long standing jamabandi. This Court in the case of Doman
Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (17.10.2023 -
JHRHC) : MANU/JH/1831/2023, has settled the issue that the
Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 does not
confer power to annul a jamabandi rather the revenue authority
is only vested with the power to conduct and enquiry and
thereafter annul the transfer. Transfer and cancellation of
jamabandi not only have different meanings but the effect of the
same is also different. The legislature in his wisdom has used
the words 'annul such transfer' The relevant portion of the
judgement is reproduced as under:-
"37. It is evident from Section 4 (h) of the BLR Act, 1950
that the Collector has been conferred with the power to
conduct an enquiry and if the land, after coming into effect
of BLR Act, has been transferred by the ex-landlord so as
to frustrate the very object, he can annul such transfer. The
statute also provide a cut-off date i.e., if any transfer has
been made on or after 01.01.1946 such transfer will come
into the domain of the enquiry to be conducted by the
Deputy Commissioner.
38. It further appears that Section 4 (h) of the BLR Act,
1950 confers power to conduct the enquiry and based upon
the finding after providing a reasonable opportunity to the
party concerned the transfer is to be annulled. The word
'transfer' is the issue which has got bearing since it cannot
be disputed that there is difference in between 'annulment
of land' and 'cancellation of jamabandi'. The word transfer
which has been referred in Section 4(h) of the BLR Act,
1950 reflects the mode of transfer by virtue of Transfer of
Property Act while 'cancellation of jamabandi' pertains to
consequence of transfer meaning thereby the transfer if
made of an immovable proper in favour of party, then the
title will shift upon such party based upon such title, the
jamabandi will be created in his favour which is for the
purpose of payment of rent in favour of State exchequer.
39. Thus it is evident that the 'transfer of land' and
'cancellation of jamabandi' are two different notions having
two different implications.
40. In Section 4(h) of the BLR Act, 1950 since reference of
word annulment of transfer is there, meaning thereby, if
the jamabandi will be cancelled then the question would be
that what will happen to such transfer by virtue of that the
title of the land has been vested to another party and it is
for that reason the word transfer has been used under
Section 4(h) and the basic purpose of this is that if the land
has been transferred only for the purpose of frustrating the
object and intent of Section 4(h) of BLR Act, 1950 then the
requirement as per law would be, in order to achieve the
object and intent, to cancel the transfer so that the land be
vested in the State after abolition of intermediary system
by virtue of BLR Act, 1950.
41. This Court in view of provision of Section 4(h) of the
BLR Act. 1950 therefore, is not hesitant in holding that
Section 4(h) of the BLR Act, 1950 does not confer any
power upon the revenue authority to cancel jamabandi and
if it will be accepted then the very purpose of the Act will be
frustrated reason being that the land will be allowed to be
remained in the title of the private party instead of its
vesting to the State after abolition of intermediary system.
42. Herein the Deputy Commissioner has initiated a
proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi even though such
power is not conferred to him"
Accordingly it is held that Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land
Reforms, 1950 confers power on the authority to annul
transfer which is made after 1st January 1946 and appears to
be suspicious but it nowhere confers power to cancel
jamabandi. This view has been endorsed in the case of
Doman Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors
(supra).
7. Now coming to the issue of annulment of long
standing jamabandi. This Court has since long taken a
consistent stand that long standing jamabandi cannot be
annulled on by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. The
division bench of this Court has held the same in the case of
Mahabir Mahto and Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand and
Ors. (27.08.2012 - JHRHC) : MANU/JH/1375/2012, the
relevant portion of which is reproduced as under for ready
reference:-
"This is one of the case where the facts are not in dispute
that in the year 1998, when the application was submitted
before the Circle Officer, the names of the
respondents/writ petitioners were there in the revenue
record since long and the appellants were not claiming title
through the respondent and, therefore, had a rival claim
and adverse to the writ petitioners/respondents. Since
1998, parties approached total seven forums for obtaining
order in fiscal proceeding matter wherein no actual relief
can be granted to the parties. If the parties would have
filed the suit of appropriate nature in competent court of
jurisdiction in the year 1998, they may have paid the court
fees according to the market value of the property as it
was in the year 1998...."
A reference has further been made in the case of
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain
(05.11.2020 - JHRHC: MANU/JH/0983/2020), wherein the
Division Bench of this Court held that once jamabandi is
created it cannot be cancelled. The relevant portion of the
judgement is reproduced as under:-
"It is further settled position of law that Jamabandi
once created cannot be annulled. Herein it is admitted
fact that Jamabandi can be created under the
provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of
Records) Act, 1973. We have gone across the
provisions thereof, as contained in the Act, 1973 and
have found that no provision confer upon any
authority of the State to cancel the Jamabandi."
Moving on, when the revenue authority has no
jurisdiction to cancel the jamabandi, it cannot disturb a long
standing jamabandi created in favour of an individual. The
jurisprudence behind not disturbing a long standing
jamabandi lies in the settled principle of law that a decision
of long standing based on which persons have arranged their
affairs should not be disturbed lightly. The Division Bench of
this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand and Ors.
vs. Izhar Hussain (supra) held that long standing jamabandi
cannot be annulled only by the civil court of competent
jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the judgment is
reproduced as under for ready reference:-
"It is further settled that long running Jamabandi
cannot be cancelled, save and except by filing a suit
before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, as has
been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav
& Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in
MANU/BH/0374/2013 : (2013) 3 PLJR 533"
8. The respondents have alleged that the Jamabandi
was created on basis of forged and fabricated khalsa receipts.
However, the respondents failed to even consider its
jurisdiction with respect to cancellation of Jamabandi. Once
this Court has categorically stated that Revenue Authorities
have no such jurisdiction, any case having a suspicious
jamabandi especially a long standing it should be assailed
before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. In light of the above, this Court holds that the
revenue authorities cannot cancel a jamabandi in exercise of
powers under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
1950. Moreso, a long standing jamabandi cannot be
interfered except by the civil court of competent jurisdiction.
The first and the second issue stand answered accordingly.
Now coming to the third issue. In the case at hand,
Jamabandi was created in the favour of the petitioner and
thereafter rent receipts were continuously issued. The State
has not controverted the pleadings that the petitioner was in
peaceful and cultivatable possession of the suit property for a
period of almost 68 (sixty eight) years.
It is a settled position of law that even if no time is
prescribed for exercise of powers under the statute, any
action must be taken within a reasonable period of time.
However, a span of 68 (sixty-eight) years can by no stretch of
imagination be held to be reasonable for initiating such
proceedings. This Court draws strength from the judgement
rendered by this Court in the case of Antardhari Sao Vs.
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. MANU/JH/0269/2024,
wherein it was held that all actions including those purported
to be taken under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms
Act, 1950 are to be taken within a reasonable period. In the
said case the action was initiated after a period of 47 (forty
seven) years. The Court in the said case observed as under:-
"19. Ultimately in para 18 of the aforesaid judgment
the learned Division Bench of this Court has held
that whenever an open ended time limit is given to
any authority to exercise its power, specially under
the land laws, the said powers ought to be
exercised within a reasonable period and surely 47
long years is not a reasonable period. It has also
been held by the Division Bench that after a long
lapse of time no such power could have been
exercised by the Collector or any person delegated
with the powers to initiate the proceeding under
Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950."
10. This Court is of the view that the Respondent
Authority do not pay heed to several binding judicial
pronouncements with respect the scope and tenor of Section
4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950. Such action is
contrary to the litigation policy of the State of Jharkhand
framed in 2015. This tends to cause harassment to the
ordinary citizens. The vision of the State litigation policy is
reproduced as under:-
"The State Litigation Policy is based on recognition
that Government and its various agencies are the
pre-dominant litigants in Courts and Tribunals in
the State. The purpose underlying this policy is to
reduce Government Litigations in Courts and
Tribunals so that valuable Court time would be
spent in resolving other pending cases so as to
achieve the goal in the National Legal Mission to
reduce average pendency time from 15 years
preferably to 3 years."
The action of the respondents despite several
judicial pronouncements shows that the Respondent-State in
not acting as per the policy but has reduced it to a mere
document. In order to ensure compliance of such policy the
time is ripe to hold training sessions for revenue official to
make them abreast with respect to the prevailing position of
law.
Let a copy of this order be communicated to
Respondent No. 1 and 2, who in turn should circulate it to
the Deputy Commissioners of all the districts within the
State of Jharkhand for necessary action.
11. In light of the above a writ of certiorari is hereby
issued quashing the entire proceedings being Sandhyahmak
Jamabandi Case No. 26 of 2020-21 along with the impugned
order dated 23.12.2022. Accordingly, the writ petition is
hereby allowed. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jk
AFR
