Patna High Court
Nawal Kishore Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 31 July, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12049 of 2025
======================================================
Nawal Kishore Chaudhary Son of Late Nageshwar Chaudhary Resident of
Village Gadhiya, P.O Gadhiya, P.S. Chautham, Dist. Khagariya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector, Khagaria.
2. The Additional Collector, Khagaria.
3. The Anchal Adhikari, Chautham, Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manas Prakash, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (5)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-07-2025
In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed
for following relief(s):-
(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s) in
the nature of Certiorari to quash the
initiation of Jamabandi cancellation
proceeding which has been registered as
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.
212/2024-25
without assigning any
reason in the notice dated 25.01.2025 and
further to quash the notice dated
25.01.2025 issued to the petitioner by the
Respondent No. 2 i.e. Additional
Collector, Khagaria, as the notice itself is
bad and beyond the jurisdiction since the
notice does not disclose the reason which
is mandatory requirement as
contemplated under Section 9 of the
Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(ii) For a direction to stay the further
proceeding of Jamabandi Cancellation
Case no. 212/2024-25 pending before
Respondent No. 2 i.e. Additional
Collector, Khagaria, else it will cause
serious prejudice to the petitioner.
(iii) For grant of any other relief/reliefs to
which the petitioners are found entitled or
Patna High Court CWJC No.12049 of 2025 dt.31-07-2025
to pass any other order(s) / direction(s)
which your Lordships may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
land in question appertaining to Khata No.61, Kheshra no. 342,
area-4 khattha 3 dhur, Jamabandi no. 344 belongs to the
petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is aggrieved by the
notice dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-P/1) regarding initiation of
cancellation of Jamabandi by the Additional Collector,
Khagaria. He has submitted that in order to initiate cancellation
of jamabandi notice, there must be material to form the opinion
for initiating the notice for cancellation of jamabandi which is
totally missing in the notice issued by the concerned Additional
Collector.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted that issue involved in the present writ petition is
identical and similar to Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 19368
of 2021 decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
(Annexure-P/3).
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the State has not
denied the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
with regard to the contents of notice. Learned counsel has fairly
submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is
Patna High Court CWJC No.12049 of 2025 dt.31-07-2025
identical and similar to the CWJC No. 19368 of 2021.
4. Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011
contemplates that the Additional Collector, either suo motu or
on an application, shall have the power to make inquiries in
respect of any jamabandi, which has been created in violation of
any law for the time being in force or in contravention of any
executive instruction issued in this behalf. It would be better to
quote Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, which
is as follows:-
"9. Cancellation of
jamabandi -- (1) The Additional Collector, either
suo motu or on an application, shall have the power
to make inquiries in respect of any jamabandi,
which has been created in violation of any law for
the time being in force or in contravention of any
executive instruction issued in this behalf. The
Additional Collector, in whose jurisdiction the land
is situated, may, after giving reasonable opportunity
to the parties concerned to appear, adduce evidence
and be heard, cancel such jamabandi, dispossess the
person claiming under it and deliver the possession
to the legitimate owner/custodian, on such terms as
may appear to the Additional Collector to be fair
and equitable."
5. In the show-cause notice, which is under-
challenge, no ground has been assigned. The notice dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.12049 of 2025 dt.31-07-2025
25.01.2025 is quoted here-in-below:-
" नयायालय अपर समाहरार , खगडडया
डी०बी० नं 0 165 ददनांक 25-01-25
जमाबं दी रसीद वाद सं 0 212@24&25
पवन कुमारी बनाम नवल दकशोर चौधरी
नोदटस बनाम %&
1 नवल दकशोर चौधरी
पे ०- नागे शवर प्रसाद चौधरी
सा०& गदढया थाना चौथम
दजला खगदडया
चूँ बजदरये नोदटस आपको सूदचत दकया जाता है दक इस
नयायालय मे जमाबं दी रदीकरण वाद प्रापत हुआ है दजसकी अगली सु नवाई दतदथ
28-2-25 को दनधारदरत है ।
अतः आपको सूदचत दकया जाता है दक उकत वाद मे दनधारदरत
दतदथ को सवयं या अदधवकता के माधयम मे नयायालय मे उपदसथत होकर अपना
पक प्रसतु त करे अनयथा वाद की एकपकीय सु नवाई कर izkIr तथयो के आधार पर
यथोदचत दनणरय पादरत दकया जाये गा।
इसे तादकद जाने
ह०@&
अपर समाहतार
खगदडया
6. From bare perusal of impugned notice, it is
apparent that no ground has been mentioned as to why
jamabandi cancellation proceeding has been initiated against the
petitioner. It is settled law that the existence of an alternative
remedy is not a bar for this Court to entertain a writ application.
If an order is absolutely beyond jurisdiction, this Court must
interfere with at the stage of issuance of notice itself, else it will
Patna High Court CWJC No.12049 of 2025 dt.31-07-2025
cause serious prejudice. In this regard, reference can be made to
a Supreme Court decision, reported in (1998) 8 S.C.C. 1
(Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai
and Others).
7. From bare perusal of notice it is crystal clear
that there is nothing to show that prima facie opinion of
Additional Collector has been reflected in the notice issued. The
said notice does not clarify as to which law has been violated
and which instruction has been contravened while jamabandi
was created in favour of the petitioner. The said notice does not
reflect any specific opinion and same is vague, cryptic and does
not reveal the ground on which proceeding for cancellation of
jamabandi has been initiated against the petitioner. It cannot be
said to have been issued in conformity with the provisions
contained in Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
8. Further, any order passed by the quasi judicial
authority or any other authority must be a speaking and
reasoned order but the aforesaid notice contained in Annexure-
P/1 does not denote any reason for passing the order. If the order
is non-speaking and without any reason or logic, the order has
no meaning at all. In this context, the decision rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.12049 of 2025 dt.31-07-2025
Union of India & Ors reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427 is quite
relevant. Para 40 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted here-in-
below for ready reference :-
"40. In Kranti Associates this Court
after considering various judgments formulated certain
principles in SCC para 47 of the judgment which are set out
below: (SCC pp. 510-12)
"(a) In India the judicial trend has always
been to record reasons, even in administrative
decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record
reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is
meant to serve the wider principle of justice that
justice must not only be done it must also appear to
be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as
a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of
judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative
power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has
been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a decision-making
process as observing principles of natural justice by
Patna High Court CWJC No.12049 of 2025 dt.31-07-2025
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of
judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all
countries committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of
judicial decision-making justifying the principle that
reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions
these days can be as different as the judges and
authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve
one common purpose which is to demonstrate by
reason that the relevant factors have been objectively
considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement
for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority
is not candid enough about his/her decision-making
process then it is impossible to know whether the
person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent
or to principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be
cogent, clear and Succinct. A pretence of reasons or
'rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a
valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency
is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial
Patna High Court CWJC No.12049 of 2025 dt.31-07-2025
powers. Transparency in decision-making not only
makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to
errors but also makes them subject to broader
scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harv. L. Rev. 731-37.)
(n) Since the requirement to record
reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness
in decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was
considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
Ruiz Torija v. Spain, EHRR at p. 562, para 29 and
Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court
referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of
Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and
intelligent reasons must be given for judicial
decisions'.
(o) In all common law jurisdictions
judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents
for the future. Therefore, for development of law,
requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of
the essence and is virtually a part of 'due process'."
9. In the light of the discussions made above and
the law laid down by the Hon'be Supreme Court in the cases of
Whirlpool Corporation (supra) and Oryx Fisheries Private
Limited (supra), the notice dated 25.01.2025 (Annexure-P/1) in
the Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 212/2024-25 issued by the
Additional Collector, Khagaria is not sustainable in the eye of
Patna High Court CWJC No.12049 of 2025 dt.31-07-2025
law and the same is, hereby, quashed.
10. The Additional Collector, Khagaria is
directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner, disclosing the
materials, which are the basis for him to form an opinion that
jamabandi created in the name of the petitioner deserves to be
cancelled. Such a notice must be issued within two months from
today and thereafter the Additional Collector, Khagaria shall
proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
11. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the
present writ petition stands disposed of.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
amitkumar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 04.08.2025
Transmission Date N/A
