The Patna High Court has held that a longstanding jamabandi, especially one continuing since 1978 with rent being accepted, cannot be cancelled in a summary jamabandi cancellation proceeding under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 merely because the State disputes the title or nature of the land. If the State claims that the settlement or jamabandi is illegal, it must seek appropriate declaration before a competent civil forum; until then, the recorded holder cannot be dispossessed through administrative cancellation proceedings.
On that basis, the High Court quashed the entire Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 72/21-22, directed restoration of Jamabandi No. 311, and left it open to the State to pursue its claim before the appropriate forum if so advised.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sourendra Pandey noted that the jamabandi in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor had been created way back in 1978 and had continued for decades, and that rent was also being paid in respect of the land. The Bench treated this as a longstanding jamabandi and observed that such old jamabandi cannot be cancelled in the manner attempted by the State.
The Bench referred to its earlier decisions in Maya Devi v. State of Bihar [(2014) 3 PLJR 584], and State of Bihar through Collector, Siwan v. Harendra Nath Tiwary [2015 (1) PLJR 606], to reiterate that even where the State disputes the title of the landholder, the proper remedy is to approach the civil court, and not to cancel jamabandi through a summary proceeding. The Bench further emphasized that until such dispute is resolved in accordance with law, the petitioners cannot be evicted by the State in any manner, nor can compensation be denied if the State wants the land.
Briefly, the petitioners challenged a notice issued under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and the related Jamabandi Cancellation Case, by which the State sought to cancel their jamabandi over land in Khata No. 754, Khesra Nos. 7514 and 7680 measuring about 8 acres, on the ground that the land was allegedly “Gair Mazrua Khas” land and was proposed to be used for construction of an old age home and a godown. The petitioners also questioned the earlier letter dated Sep 06, 2019 of the Additional Collector, which formed the basis of the cancellation process, and asserted that the land had long stood settled with their family and had become raiyati land in their possession for three generations.
The petitioners’ case was that Jamabandi No. 311 had been created in favour of their predecessor Bhogilal Yadav in or around 1978 and continued thereafter. According to them, although the jamabandi cancellation proceeding had not been concluded, the authorities had already entered the land, stacked building material, erected temporary labour quarters, and undertaken soil testing, effectively disturbing their possession. They claimed that they had absolute and continuous right, title and interest over the land and that the State had acted illegally in trying to dispossess them while the proceeding was still pending.
The State argued that the petitioners’ claim was based on an alleged parwangi which was not tenable, and that the jamabandi in the name of Bhogilal Yadav had been created without authority and in collusion with the halka karmchari. It was also argued that the reference relied on by the petitioners was to an “aapsi batwara” case and not a mutation case, and therefore the Circle Officer had rightly sent a proposal for cancellation under Section 9 of the 2011 Act.
