Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Sundar Ram @ Shyam Sunder Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
2025:JHHC:27816
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.6546 of 2024
Shyam Sundar Ram @ Shyam Sunder Ram, aged about
93 years, son of Late Ramautar Ram, presently residing
at BG-42, Salt Lake City, Sector-II, District North 24
Parganas-700091, State of West Bengal, and permanent
resident of Mahagama Main Bazar, P.O. & P.S.
Mahagama, District Godda, PIN-814154, Jharkhand,
represented through his Power of Attorney Holder,
namely, Bhagirath Kumar Tibrewal, aged about 61 years,
Son of Shyam Sundar Ram, presently residing at BG-42,
Salt Lake City, Sector-II, P.O. Sech Bhawan, P.S.
Bidhannagar North, District North 24 Parganas-700091,
State of West Bengal, and permanent resident of
Mahagama Main Bazar, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District
Godda, PIN-814154, Jharkhand. ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Principal
Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department,
having its office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S.
Dhurwa, District Ranchi-834004 (Jharkhand).
2. Deputy Commissioner, Godda, having its office at
District Collectorate, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District
Godda (Jharkhand).
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Mahagama, having its office
at Mahagama, P.O. & P.S. Mahagama, District
Godda (Jharkhand).
4. Circle Officer, Mahagama Circle, Mahagama,
having its office at Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.
Mahagama, District Godda (Jharkhand).
5. Aabid Alam, aged about and son of not known to
the petitioner, resident of Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.
Mahagama, District Godda (Jharkhand).
6. Birma Devi, aged about and wife/daughter of not
known to the petitioner, resident of Mahagama, P.O.
& P.S. Mahagama, District Godda (Jharkhand).
7. Ranjeet @ Rajeet, aged about and son of not known
to the petitioner, resident of Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.
Mahagama, District Godda (Jharkhand).
8. Nitya Nand Sharma, aged about and son of not
known to the petitioner, resident of Mahagama, P.O.
& P.S. Mahagama, District Godda (Jharkhand).
9. Birju Manjhi, aged about and son of not known to
the petitioner, resident of Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.
Mahagama, District Godda (Jharkhand).
10. Md. Faijuddin, aged about and son of not known to
the petitioner, resident of Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.
Mahagama, District Godda (Jharkhand)..
...... Respondents
-1- W.P.C No.6546 of 2024
2025:JHHC:27816
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate
Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate
Mr. Ritesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Ashutosh Agarwal, Advocate
Mr. Anish Lal, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, A.C to A.G
---------
th
06/Dated: 11 September, 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs :-
"(i) for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction, including writ of Certiorari, for
quashing/setting order dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure-
24) passed by the Court of Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Mahagama in Doubtful Settlement Case
No.01 of 2024, as the said order is wholly illegal and
without jurisdiction;
(ii) for issuance of further appropriate writ,
order or direction, including writ of declaration,
declaring that the action of the Respondent
authorities in initiating Doubtful Settlement Case
No.01 of 2024 against the petitioner on the basis of
the complaint filed by private respondents is wholly
illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and
violative of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution
of India."
3. The description of land of the petitioner is as follows :-
"Mouja Basua, Village Mahagama, Thana No.692,
Khata No.24/56, Dag No.32, Area- 03 Bigha."
4. The brief facts of the case is as follows :-
"(a) The land in question was settled in favour of
petitioner by Ex-landlord, namely, Babu Banshidhar
Dhandhania through Hukumnama dated 17.3.1952
and, accordingly, rent in respect of the said land was
duly received by the said Ex-landlord.
2025:JHHC:27816
(b) vide Rent fixation Case No.12 of 1963-64,
rent in respect of the land in question was duly
determined by the Circle Officer, Mahagama and
pursuant to vesting of Jamindari, rent was duly
received by the then State of Bihar.
(c) Misc. Case No.30 of 1964-65 was instituted
before the court of L.R.D.C., Godda alleging that the
petitioner has encroached upon the land in question
and vide its order dated 31.1.1966 the said
proceeding was dropped observing that the rent in
respect of the land in question has duly been
determined by Respondent No.4 i.e. the ircle officer,
Mahgama, Godda in Rent Fixation Case No.12 of
1963-64 and as such it was beyond the scope of
Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 to get
the petitioner dispossessed from the land in
question.
(d) After lapse of 17-18 years, Misc. Case No.11
of 1981-82 was initiated for cancelling the Jamabandi
running in the name of the petitioner and vide an ex-
parte order dated 02.04.1981 L.R.D.C., Mahagama
has cancelled the said Jamabandi running in the
name of the petitioner and the petitioner was
dispossessed from the land in question.
(e) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a suit being
Title Suit No.01 of 1983 in the court of learned In-
charge Officer-II, Dumka, District -Godda, praying
therein for declaration of right, title and interest of
the petitioner over the land in question and also for
recovery of possession and even ex-parte order dated
02.04.1981 was also challenged in the said suit.
(f) Pursuant to passing of the judgment and
order in Title Suit No.01 of 1983, a Basgadi Order
dated 19.06.1995 was duly issued and the petitioner
was put in possession of the land in question.
(g) Thereafter, Title Appeal No.06 of 1995 was
filed by State of Bihar and others and the order
2025:JHHC:27816
passed in Title Suit No.01 of 1983 was affirmed.
Even the said appeal was also dismissed on
29.03.2005.
(h) Despite the fact that the Title Appeal was
dismissed, Notice dated 18.8.2015 was issued by the
Respondent No.4 by which petitioner was directed to
stop the construction work over the land
appertaining to Plot No.32, Mouja Basua, Jamabandi
(Khata) No.25/56 of village Mahagama, District
Godda.
(i) Challenging the said Notice dated 18.8.2015
Petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.4186 of 2015 before
this Court which was disposed of vide order dated
05.09.2018 with certain directions and observation
that the Circle Officer has got no jurisdiction to pass
any restraining order in connection with the
construction over the private property.
(j) Pursuant to aforementioned order, the
petitioner filed an application before the Respondent
No.4, being Revenue Misc. Case No.02 of 2018-19,
and an order on 21.2.2019 was passed specifically
recording that the petitioner is the lawful owner of
the land in question.
(k) Petitioner has filed an application before the
Respondent No.4 for deleting the name of the
Department of Animal Husbandry from the Register-
II, as the name of the Department was in Register-II
maintained with Revenue Authorities as the
Department of Animal Husbandry, and vide an order
dated 01.03.2021 deletion of name of the
Department of Animal Husbandry from Register-II
was duly approved and, accordingly, necessary
corrections were directed to be made in Register-II.
(l) Further, rent receipts were duly issued for
the period from 2003-04 to 2020-21 in the name of
the petitioner.
(m) Pursuant to the application made by one
2025:JHHC:27816
Rajeev Ranjan Bhagat before Respondent No. 03,
even report was called from the Respondent No.4
and Respondent No. 04 vide its letter no.137 dated
24.01.2022 furnished enquiry report before the
Respondent No.3 and in the said report it has been
stated that the title and ownership of the petitioner
in respect of the land in question has been duly
decided in favour of the petitioner vide order passed
in Title Appeal No. 06 of 1995.
(n) Thereafter, the Respondent No.3 vide its
order dated 19.02.2022 dismissed the said
application filed by Rajeev Ranjan Bhagat in view of
the enquiry report submitted by R. No. 04, wherein it
was clearly recorded that the petitioner is the legal
and rightful owner of the land in question.
(o) Even rent receipts for the period from 2021-
22 to 2024-25 have also been issued in the name of
the petitioner.
(p) Copy of Register-II showing the name of the
petitioner is duly mentioned in Register-Il in respect
of the land in question.
(q) Thereafter, a complaint was filed by one
Abid Alam and others Private Respondents before
the Respondent No.3 alleging that the land
appertaining to Khata No.24, Dag No.32, Thana
No.692, Mouja Basua, which has been recorded as
"PARTI KADIM", is a government land and the
petitioner has encroached upon the said government
land.
(r) Notice dated 26.07.2024 was issued by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahagama, directing the
petitioner to appear on 30.07.2024 to present his
case in respect of the allegation made against him.
(s) Respondent No.4 vide its Letter No.1023
dated 12.08.2024 has furnished its enquiry report
before the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahagama.
(t) Even the District Agriculture Officer, Godda,
2025:JHHC:27816
vide its Letter No. 1225 dated 30.07.2024 also called
for an enquiry report from the office of Respondent
No.4 in respect of the complaint filed by private
respondents and other, and enquiry report was also
furnished vide Letter no. 1024 dated 12.08.2024 by
R.No.4 in respect of the land in question to the said
authority.
(u) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mahagama
has been pleased to pass the order dated 03.09.2024
in the said Doubtful Settlement Case No. 01 of 2024,
wherein by the said order, the case files/records have
been directed to be sent to the Deputy
Commissioner, Godda for further necessary actions
allegedly recording that the Hukumnama/
unregistered Hukumnama on the basis of which the
land in question was settled in favour of the
petitioner is appearing to be doubtful."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment passed in the case of State of Jharkhand through
the Chief Secretary & Ors. Vs. Izhar Hussain reported in
2021 AIR CC 1281. Relevant portion of para - 19 of the said
judgment is quoted herein-below:-
"19. -------------
---------
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 provision 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.
The question would be that in absence of any
power conferred by Statute upon any of the revenue
authority can Jamabandi be cancelled. The answer
of this question would be in negative as statute
confers power upon the authority and the authority
can purportedly exercise the power conferred upon
it under the statutory power and if any decision is
taken in absence of any provision the same would be
said to be nullity in the eye of law when found to be
without jurisdiction.
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
2025:JHHC:27816
has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramayan
Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 3 PLJR 533."
6. On the strength of the aforesaid judgment, it has been
submitted that the power under Section 4(h) of the Bihar
Land Reforms Act, 1950 is now not available with the State.
Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is
quoted herein-below:-
"4(h) The Collector shall have power to make
inquiries in respect of any transfer including the
settlement or lease of any land comprised in such
estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of
interest in any building used primarily as office or
cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or
tenure or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that
such transfer was made [at any time after the first
day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating
any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the
State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder
the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to
the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul
such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under
it and take possession of such property on such
terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and
equitable
Provided that an appeal against an order of the
Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty
days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed
authority not below the rank of the Collector or a
district who shall dispose of the same according to
the prescribed procedure
Provided further that no order annulling a
transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be
taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has
been confirmed by the State Government."
It has further been submitted that so far as the title is
concerned, it has already been settled between the present
parties by the Civil Court in Title Suit No.1 of 1983. In the
present case, the civil court has decided the title in favour of
the present petitioner. Once the title has been declared by the
competent civil court and it has attained finality then there is
no question of initiation of any proceeding under Section 4(h)
of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the
impugned order stating that the 4(h) proceeding has not been
initiated till date rather there is recommendation only.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from
perusal of the record, it appears that the impugned order is a
2025:JHHC:27816
proceeding termed as a Doubtful Settlement Case No.1/
2024. The title itself suggests that the power under Section
4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been utilized.
9. The law is well settled on the point that :-
(1) If the property is is in the possession of one
or other person for more than 30 years, then only
remedy available with one or other party is title suit
and no proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar
Land Reforms Act, 1950.
(2) The Government cannot be an adjudicator in
its own case. If there is serious dispute of title (may
be on the ground of limitation), the State cannot take
itself the power of Adjudicator.
(3) Every dispute has a life. In the present case,
it appears that the dispute is of the year 1952 which
has sought to be re-opened in the year 2024 i.e. after
the laps of more than 70 years using the power
available under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950.
The aims and object of Section 4(h) of the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is transitional in
nature, which has been created for a transitional
period i.e. for the period from 01.01.1946 till the
implementation of the Act. If any transaction has
been made to defeat the purpose of the object, then
it can be annulled, but this power cannot be
exercised, after laps of more than 70 years. The
status, which is in existence for more than 70 years,
cannot be disturbed by using the transitional
provision i.e. Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms
Act, 1950.
10. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order
dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure-4), passed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Mahagama, Godda in Doubtful Settlement Case
No.01 of 2024 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.
It is, hereby, declared that the State has no authority to
initiate a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land
2025:JHHC:27816
Reforms Act, 1950 with regard to the present land in
question.
11. With above observation and direction, the present writ
petition is, hereby, disposed of.
12. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Ravi-Chandan/-
