David Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 819 Patna

Patna High Court

David Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 10 April, 2026

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16971 of 2021
     ======================================================
     David Kumar, Son of late Umesh Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Halkara
     Chack, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur, at present Village-
     Shivnandanpur, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.

                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                       Versus
1.   The State of Bihar.
2.   The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform Department,
     Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Bhagalpur.
4.   The Additional Collector, Bhagalpur.
5.   The Circle Officer, Sultanganj, Bhagalpur.
6.   Nand Kumar Yadav, S/o late Suresh Yadav, R/o Village- Hemra, Halkara
     Chack (Nayagaon), P.S.- (Bath) Sultanganj, Bhagalpur.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s   :      Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
     For the State          :      Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, G.P.-18
     For the Respondent No.6:      Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Adv.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
     C.A.V. JUDGMENT
     Date : 10-04-2026

                      Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned Advocate

      for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jai, the learned

      Advocate for respondent No. 6.                The State has been

      represented by Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18.

                      2. The present writ application, under Articles

      226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by

      the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2021

      passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur in Jamabandi Cancellation
 Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
                                           2/17




         Appeal Case No. 121/2019-20, whereby the order dated

         21.05.2018

passed by the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur in

Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 07/2017-18 has been set

aside.

Factual Background :-

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ

application is to the effect that in the year 1969, there was a

litigation between the grandfathers of the petitioner and

respondent No. 6 with respect to a land, appertaining to Khata

No. 65, Khesra No. 71, Area 17 decimal, falling within

Mauza-Hemra, for which, a Title Suit, bearing No. 97 of 1969,

was instituted. On contest, the judgment and decree was

passed in favour of the grandfather of respondent No. 6,

namely, Gullo Yadav, with a cost of Rs. 66.25/- paise.

4. In pursuance to the said judgment and decree,

the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Narain Yadav, had to

pay the cost, which he could not pay as awarded in the decree

to the decree-holder, on account of which said Gullo Yadav,

the decree-holder of Title Suit No. 97 of 1969, filed an

execution case, bearing No. 1399 of 1977, for realization of

the cost of Rs. 66.25/- paise.

5. In the aforesaid execution case, the learned

Execution Court has passed an ex-parte order on 19.04.1979 Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

and auctioned sold the Khatiyani land of the petitioner, bearing

Mauza-Hemra, Khata No. 65, Khesra No. 93, Area 0.16

decimal for a meager amount of Rs. 103/- only, which was

purchased by the grandfather of respondent No. 6. Aforesaid

Gullo Yadav, on the basis of such purchase, filed a mutation

case, bearing No. 18-1981-82, and one Jamabandi, bearing

No. 189, was created on 10.03.1982 for the aforesaid Khata

No. 71, Khesra No. 93.

6. The grandfather of the petitioner came to know

about the ex-parte order passed in Execution Case No.

1399/1977, upon which, he filed a miscellaneous case, bearing

No. 18/1981, before the learned Munsif-II, Bhagalpur for

recall of the ex-parte order as well as the order of auction of

the land in question. The said Miscellaneous Case No.

18/1981 was dismissed on 25.08.1983, holding it to be time

barred.

7. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 25.08.1983,

one miscellaneous appeal, bearing No. 17/1983, was preferred

by the grandfather of the petitioner before the learned District

Judge, Bhagalpur. The said Miscellaneous Appeal No.

17/1983, on contest, was allowed on 29.07.1987 by the learned

1st Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur, whereby the order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

25.08.1983, passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 18/1981, was

set aside. The learned Court also set aside the auction

certificate of the land of the petitioner, bearing Mauza-Hemra,

Khata No. 71, Kheshra No. 93, Area 0.16 decimal, which was

auctioned by the learned Munsif-II, Bhagalpur in Execution

Case No. 1399/1977 for realization of the cost of the Suit

awarded in Title Suit No. 97/1969.

8. The aforesaid order dated 29.07.1987, passed

in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/1983, was challenged before

this Court vide Civil Revision No. 417 of 1990. The High

Court by order dated 19.08.1993, not only confirmed the order

passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 1983 but also

settled the dispute with consent by enhancing the cost of Suit

from Rs. 66.25 paise to Rs. 1500/-. In pursuance to the High

Court's order, the enhanced cost of Suit was paid by the

grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Narain Yadav and was

duly accepted by the father of respondent No. 6, namely,

Suresh Yadav.

9. One mutation case, bearing No. 26/1987-88,

which was preferred by the father of the petitioner, was

reviewed by the Circle Officer, Sultanganj on the basis of the

order passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/1983 and Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

thereby, Jamabandi No. 71 in favour of late Narain Yadav was

revived by order dated 18.03.1988 and since then, the rent has

been paid by the grandfather of the petitioner.

10. In the meanwhile, the Title Execution Case

No. 133/1977, which was preferred by the grandfather of

respondent No. 6, namely, Gullo Yadav, was also dismissed

taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in

Civil Revision No. 417 of 1990 and the dispute was laid to

rest.

11. Almost after 19 years, the father of

respondent No. 6, namely, Suresh Yadav, after several years of

the death of Gullo Yadav, his father, filed Jamabandi

Cancellation Case No. 01/2015 before the Circle Officer,

Sultanganj, which was ultimately forwarded to the Addl.

Collector, Bhagalpur and a Jamabandi Case No. 07/2017-18

was registered. The Addl. Collector, by a detailed and

reasoned order, dismissed the application for cancellation of

Jamabandi made in favour of the forefathers of the petitioner

by order dated 21.05.2018.

12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,

respondent No. 6 has filed Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal No.

121/2019-20 before the Collector, Bhagalpur. The Collector, Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

by order dated 31.05.2021, allowed the said appeal preferred

by respondent No. 6, holding therein as follows:

"mYys[kuh; gS fd mHk; i{kksa ds chp iz"uxr tehu dk LoRo dks ysdj xaHkhj ekeyk gS] ftldk fujkdj.k l{ke@O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds }kjk gh fd;k tkuk laHko gS] tks fd bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj gS fo}ku fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk bl fcUnq ij dksbZ rF;kRed fu.kZ; ugha fy;k x;k gS vr% mDr ds leh{kksijkUr fu'd'kZr% fo)ku fuEu U;k;ky; dk vkns"k fnukad 21-05-18 dks fujLr djrs gq, orZeku okn dh dkjZokbZ lekIr dh tkrh gSA"

13. The petitioner, being the grandson of late

Narain Yadav and aggrieved by such order passed by the

Collector, Bhagalpur, has preferred the present writ

application.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :-

14. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned Advocate for

the petitioner, submits that the Collector, Bhagalpur has

exceeded his jurisdiction by ignoring the orders passed not

only by a competent Civil Court, but also being approved by

the High Court when the father of respondent No. 6 had

approached this Court, initiating a proceeding under the

Revisional Jurisdiction, being Civil Revision No. 417 of 1990.

It has been submitted that the Collector ignored the fact that

the execution case filed by the grandfather of respondent No. Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

6, namely, Gullo Yadav, was dismissed on 17.07.1996 and,

therefore, his approaching for cancellation of Jamabandi

almost after 19 years was, in itself, a mischief and, thus, the

impugned order is perverse and illegal as also has been passed

in defiance of the order passed by the High Court.

15. It has been submitted that the impugned order

suffers from other illegalities also as while holding that "the

dispute between the parties seems to be with regard to title and

the same can only be settled through a competent Civil Court

and the same is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and

thereby setting aside the previous orders passed by the Addl.

Collector, Bhagalpur stating that the Addl. Collector had not

taken any factual decision on the same", is apparently against

the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on this

point, refers to the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Addl.

Collector, Bhagalpur and drew the attention of this Court to

the second-last paragraph of the same, which reads as

hereunder:

"mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa nkf[ky dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ds mijkar ;g U;k;ky; bl fu'd'kZ ij igqaprk gS fd lqjs"k ;kno }kjk /kks[kk/kM+h djrs gq, fnokuh okn la0&97@69 esa vius i{k esa fMdzh izkIr dj fy;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk ds vkns"k fnukad&19-08-1993 ds }kjk ;g Li'V gS fd oknh dks 1500 :i;s dh jde izkIr djkdj ds"k dks lekIr dj Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

fn;k x;k gSA ftldk mYys[k fnokuh tkjh okn la0&1399@77 esa fnukad&17-07-1996 dks ikfjr vkns"k esa lqLi'V dj fn;k x;k gS fd okn dk dksbZ jde ckdh ugha jgk gS rFkk bls [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k gSA iw.kZ olwyh ds vk/kkj ij okn dks [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k gSA bl fLFkfr esa fMdzh ds vk/kkj ij oknh ds i{k esa tekcanh 189 dks ;Fkkor j[kuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bls jn~n fd;k tkrk gS vapy vf/kdkjh lqyrkuxat }kjk foi{kh dks ,y0ih0lh0 fuxZr gS tks n[ky dCtk dk izek.k lkfcr djrk gSA"

16. It has been submitted that the Addl. Collector,

Bhagalpur, after taking the entire factual background of the

case and recording the previous findings and orders of the

competent Civil Court, had come to a categorical finding that

Jamabandi No. 189, created in favour of the applicant/Suresh

Yadav, could not be sustained and was thereby being

cancelled. The Addl. Collector had rejected the

recommendations of the Circle Officer, Sultanganj after

assessing the entire facts of the case including the orders

passed by the Civil Court as well as the High Court.

17. The learned counsel, therefore, has submitted

that relegating the parties to settle the dispute of mutation,

stating it to be a dispute of title, is, in itself, illegal in the

present facts and circumstances of the case as the title has

already been decided by a competent Civil Court and the

matter was laid to rest after the enhanced amount of Rs. 1500/- Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

was paid by the grandfather of the petitioner to the grandfather

of respondent No. 6, as directed by the High Court.

18. It has further been submitted that it is settled

law that long standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled on

vague claims. However, in the case in hand, it is evident from

the facts that the Jamabandi created in favour of the

grandfather of the petitioner was created after the disposal of

Title Execution Case No. 1399/1977.

19. It has, thus, been prayed that the order

impugned in the present petition is fit to be set aside.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE :-

20. Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, the learned GP-18,

referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent

Nos. 3, 4 and 5, submits that the order passed by the Collector,

Bhagalpur was legal, just, exhaustive and is a well reasoned &

speaking order and, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity

in the said impugned order.

21. It has further been submitted that it could not

be said that the Collector has not applied his mind and passed

an order. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has

directly approached the High Court without availing the

remedy of filing revision petition before the Revisional

Commissioner, as provided under the Bihar Land Mutation Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

Act, 2011 and, therefore, the present writ application is not

maintainable in its form.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 6 :-

22. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6, while opposing the

present petition, has submitted that the writ petition is in

competent as the statutory remedy of revision under Section 9

(7a) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, challenging the

Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal, dated 31.05.2021, should

have been availed and, thereafter, the remedy lies before the

Bihar Land Tribunal (B.L.T.) before approaching this Court.

23. It has been submitted that the land in question

belongs to the ancestor of respondent No. 6, viz., late Suresh

Yadav, Son of Gullo Yadav, which was mutated in the name of

Gullo Yadav vide Mutation Case No. 18/1981-82 and

Jamabandi No. 189 was created in his name. It has been

asserted that the land in question is in continuous possession of

respondent No. 6, since the period of his grandfather/Gullo

Yadav.

24. The learned counsel further submits that the

land in question was wrongly mutated vide Mutation Case No.

26/87-88 and Jamabandi No. 71 was also wrongly created in

the name of Narain Prasad Yadav, the grandfather of the Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

petitioner.

25. It has next been submitted that the Addl.

Collector, Bhagalpur had erroneously refused to cancel

Jamabandi No. 71 created in the name of the grandfather of the

petitioner and without any legal ground, had gone on to cancel

the standing Jamabandi No. 189 in favour of the father of

respondent No. 6/Suresh Yadav, which was not even the

subject matter which was forwarded by the Circle Officer,

Sultanganj. It has been submitted that the Circle Officer had

reported that it was respondent No. 6, who was in possession

over the land in question, however the same was not taken into

account. It has further been submitted that the Collector,

Bhagalpur had also gone beyond his jurisdiction by holding

that there is a serious dispute of title between the parties,

though he submits that the Collector has rightly set aside the

order passed by the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur in Jamabandi

Cancellation Appeal No. 121/2019-20.

submits that the land in question is the ancestral property of

respondent No. 6 having right, title and possession over the

same on the basis of the decree passed in Title Suit No.

97/1969 and, therefore, the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur had Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

exceeded its jurisdiction and had wrongly cancelled Jamabandi

No. 189 standing in the name of the father of respondent No.

6, namely, Suresh Yadav. It has, therefore, been contended

that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order

passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur and it does not require any

interference. It has also been submitted that it is a well settled

law that the Revisional Courts has no jurisdiction to decide the

question of title involved in a land dispute between the parties.

27. It has, thus, been submitted that the present

writ application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be

dismissed.

CONSIDERATION :-

28. After having heard the parties, the dispute

involved in the present matter can be summarized as follows:

(i) Whether the order passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur setting aside the order upholding the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner is beyond jurisdiction?; and

(ii) Whether the title needs to be seen prima facie before coming to a finding with regard to cancellation/creation of a Jamabandi?

29. The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 provides

for a summary proceeding for mutation of land records with

the sole object of maintaining updated revenue entries. It is a Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

well settled principle that mutation proceeding do not confer

title and are only for fiscal purposes. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court, in various judicial pronouncements, has held that

mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and the

same has been reiterated in the case of "Suraj Bhan Vs.

Financial Commissioner, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186".

30. From perusal of the impugned order, this

Court has observed that the Collector, Bhagalpur has dealt

with the factual aspect of the matter in detail and has noted the

factum of creation of Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner

and even the reasons of cancellation of Jamabandi, which was

created in favour of respondent No. 6 and, thereafter, has come

to a conclusion that the dispute between the parties relates to a

dispute of title, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the

Collector and it can only be decided by a competent Civil

Court.

31. This Court further finds that the Collector,

Bhagalpur has observed that the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur

had decided the matter with regard to the factual aspect of the

matter and, therefore, the order passed by the Addl. Collector

dated 21.05.2018 was set aside and the proceeding was closed.

This Court, on perusal of the order passed by the Addl. Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

Collector in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 07/2017-18,

which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/6 to

the writ application, finds that the Addl. Collector has

considered the entire facts of the case and taking into

consideration the title, which had flown in favour of

respondent No. 6 on account of auction purchase and thereby,

the said order being set aside in a miscellaneous case by the

Court of learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur and

affirmed by the High Court and, therefore, the claim of title of

the father of respondent No. 6 is wrong and, thus, he had gone

on to hold that Jamabandi No. 71, in favour of the forefathers

of the petitioner, was created and was directed to continue.

32. From the aforesaid order of the Addl.

Collector, Bhagalpur, it is also evident that he had taken into

account the fact that when the amount of Rs. 1500/- was paid

by the grandfather of the petitioner to the father of respondent

No. 6, the matter was settled for all times to come and,

therefore, the very factum of claim over the same by the father

of respondent No. 6, came to rest.

33. The other aspect of the matter passed by the

Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur was that he had also directed for

cancellation of Jamabandi No. 189, which also had continued Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

during the said period and has, thus, directed for cancellation

of such Jamabandi standing in the name of the father of

respondent No. 6.

34. This Court has also taken note of the fact that

the application for cancellation of Jamabandi No. 71, standing

in the name of the forefathers of the petitioner, was made after

almost 19 years of the passing of the orders of the Civil Court

and, therefore, it is in teeth of the well settled law that a long

standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled without taking

recourse before a competent Civil Court.

35. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that

the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of "Maya Devi

& Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in (2014) 3 PLJR,

584" is relevant in the present facts and circumstances of the

case.

36. In view of such settled position of law, this

Court finds that not only the Collector, Bhagalpur has erred in

observing that the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur had not

considered the factual background of the case, but has also

committed an error that on one hand, he is relegating the

parties to approach a competent Civil Court, holding it to be a

dispute of title, and on the other hand, he has set aside the Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

order of the Addl. Collector without passing a positive order,

either restoring the Jamabandi in favour of respondent No. 6

or cancellation of Jamabandi in favour of the forefathers of the

petitioner.

37. This Court, on perusal of the records has

found that the said land was a Khatiyani land belonging to the

petitioner and the claim over the same was on account of

auction purchase by the forefathers of respondent No. 6 and,

therefore, once the said auction purchase was set aside and Rs.

1500/- was paid by the forefathers of the petitioner to the

forefathers of respondent No. 6, question of title or possession

over such land in favour of the forefathers of respondent No. 6

cannot arise.

38. This Court is unable to comprehend as to the

fact that the Collector, Bhagalpur could not assess the facts of

the case despite verbatim noting the submissions being made

on behalf of the parties and as such, the impugned order can be

said to be passed without application of judicious mind

because of the fact that when a matter with respect to title has

already been settled between the parties way-back in the year

1983 till the stage of the High Court and no further petition

being pending before any other Court, cancelling the long Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026

standing Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner, cannot be

permitted in the eyes of law.

39. In view of the discussions made hereinabove,

the impugned order dated 31.05.2021, referred to above, is set

aside.

40. The Circle Officer, Sultanganj is directed to

restore Jamabandi No. 71 with respect to the land in question

in favour of the petitioner and any other Jamabandi standing

in favour of respondent No. 6 or his forefathers should be

cancelled with immediate effect.

41. The writ application stands allowed and

disposed of accordingly.

42. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also

stands disposed of accordingly.

(Sourendra Pandey, J) Praveen-II/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                01.04.2026
Uploading Date          10.04.2026
Transmission Date       N/A