Patna High Court
Shambhu Singh @ Shambhu Narayan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 28 January, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.962 of 2025
======================================================
Shambhu Singh @ Shambhu Narayan Singh Son of Late Rajdeo Singh
Resident of Village- Chaita, P.S. Pakridayal, District East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary Dept. of Revenue and
Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar.
2. The Collector, East Champaran.
3. The Additional Collector, (Revenue), East Champaran, Motihari.
4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Pakridayal, District-East Champaran.
5. The Circle Officer, Pakridayal, East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Asif Kalim, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (11)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-01-2025
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and
Learned Counsel for the State.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following reliefs:-
"(a). For issuance of an
appropriate writ for setting aside the notice
dated 05.09.2024 issued in connection with
Jamabandi Cancellation No.42/2024-25
(Temp Filing No.17417 dated 05.09.2024)
from the office of Additional Collector, East
Champaran whereby petitioner is asked to
show cause as to why the Jamabandi
Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025
2/12
running in his name i.e., Jamabandi No.324
with respect of land pertaining to Mauza
Chorma, Thana No.142, Khata No.105,
Khesra No.09 be not cancelled.
(b) For issuance of an
appropriate order staying the further
proceeding of the Jamabandi Cancellation
Case No.42/2024-25 (Temp Filing No.17417
dated 05.09.2024) pending before the
Additional Collector, East Champaran.
(C) For any other relief and
reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in
the opinion of this Hon'ble High Court."
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the land, which is subject matter of the present case is as
mentioned in the impugned notice i.e., Khata No.105, Plot No.9,
area 70 Bigha 2 Katha 4 Dhur, recorded in the name of Zeerat
Malik and Thikedar and the nature of land was shown as Bhit.
As from the Khatiyan it is apparent that Malik of the said land
used to be the Siraha Kothi and the same was recorded in the
Khewat No.2. Accordingly, the land was in the personal
occupation of the recorded Malik and they have full control over
the land. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice
under Section 9 for cancellation of Jamabandi has been issued.
Counsel submits that for the same plot in which notice has been
issued to total 11 persons in which petitioner has been figured at
Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025
3/12
serial No.4 has filed the present writ petition whereas the two
persons of the same notice Susma Singh and Dr. Umesh
Chandra Singh have filed writ petition bearing CWJC No.18863
of 2024 challenging the notice issued by Additional Collector
under Section 9 for cancellation of Jamabandi has been
entertained by this Court and since there was lacking of
ingredients of Section 9 in the notice on this ground the said
notice was said to be non-jurisdictional and it was quashed so
far as petitioner is concerned. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that the name of the petitioner in the said notice at serial No.4
the facts and circumstances of both the cases are absolutely
identical. Hence, the present case is squarely covered by virtue
of judgment dated 10.12.2024 passed in CWJC No.18863 of
2024.
4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that it
transpires from the pleading that petitioner is one of the persons
to whom notice in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.42/2024-25
has been made. Learned Counsel further submits that the case of
the present petitioner is identical to the case of CWJC No.18863
of 2024. He submits that appropriate order may be passed in
this circumstance.
5. After hearing the parties and going through
Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025
4/12
the pleadings it transpires to this Court that in Section 9 of the
Mutation Act 2011, there are series of decisions which has been
annexed by this Court i.e., CWJC No.16269 of 2024 (Ram
Naresh Roy and Others Vs. The State of Bihar) decided on
24.10.2024, CWJC No.3336 of 2024 (Kumar Nawlesh @ Kumar Nawlesh Roy and Others Vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 28.02.2024, CWJC No.19368 of 2021 (Rina Devi Vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 11.01.2024 and CWJC No.19368 of 2021 (Rina Devi Vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 11.01.2024, the operating part of these decisions are as follows:
CWJC No.16269 of 2024 (Ram Naresh Roy and Others Vs. The State of Bihar).
"7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court, prima facie, is of the view that notice has been issued without recording the reason based on which Jamabandi cancellation case has been instituted as the notice does not record that as to which law or executive instruction were violated when initially the Jamabandi was created, as such, the notice appears to be vague. Accordingly, the notice contained in Memo No. 698 dated 29.08.2024 issued by the ADM, Darbhanga asking the Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025 5/12 petitioners to appear before him in respect of Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 173 of 2023-24 is hereby quashed."
CWJC No.3336 of 2024 (Kumar Nawlesh @ Kumar Nawlesh Roy and Others Vs. The State of Bihar).
""10. 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 cause serious prejudice. In this regard, reference can be made to a Supreme Court decision, reported in (1998) 8 S.C.C. (Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Others).
11. In the opinion of this Court, a notice under Section 9 of the Act, 2011 for cancellation of jamabandi must disclose specific prima facie opinion of the Additional Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025 6/12 Collector that the jamabandi created in favour of a person is in violation of any law or is in contravention of any executive instruction. The notice apparently does not indicate as to which law has been violated and which instruction has been contravened while creating jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. The notice is completely vague, cryptic and does not disclose the ground, on which proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi has been initiated against the petitioner. It cannot be said to have issued in conformity with the provision contained in Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and as such, the same deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Collector, Patna is directed to issue a fresh show cause 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025 7/12 months from today, The Additional Collector, Patna shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law.
13. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction."
8. In view of the said cryptic notice issued by the Additional Collector, Lakhisarai which is bereft of the details of the land, a fact even acknowledged by the State counsel, this Court also follows the same route as decided in the case of Reena Devi (supra).
9. The notice issued in Jamabandi Cancellation No. 140/2023-24, issued by the Additional Collector, Lakhisarai, dated 12.01.2024 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) stands quashed." CWJC No.19368 of 2021 (Rina Devi Vs. The State of Bihar):
"11. In the opinion of this Court, a notice under Section 9 of the Act, 2011 for cancellation of jamabandi must disclose specific prima facie opinion of the Additional Collector that the jamabandi created in favour of a person is in violation of any law or is in contravention of any executive instruction. The notice apparently does not indicate as to which law has been Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025 8/12 violated and which instruction has been contravened while creating jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. The notice is completely vague, cryptic and does not disclose the ground, on which proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi has been initiated against the petitioner. It cannot be said to have issued in conformity with the provision contained in Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and as such, the same deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Additional Collector, Patna is directed to issue a fresh show cause 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. The Additional Collector, Patna shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law."
CWJC No.18863 of 2024 (Umesh Chander Singh and Another Vs. The State of Bihar:
"8. In the show-cause notice, which is under-challenge, no ground has been assigned. The notice dated 05.09.2024 is quoted here-in-below:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025 9/12 " U;k;ky; vij lekgrkZ&lg&vij ftyk naMkf/kdkjh iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA Temp. Filing No-17417 Date-05-09-2024 tekcanh jn~nhdj.k okn la0&42@24&25 ljdkj }kjk vapykf/kdkjh] idM+hn;ky cuke lq"kek flag ,oa nl vU;A uksfVl cuke---------------
1- lq"kek flag] ifr] Mk0 mes'k pUnz flag] 2- Mk0 mes'k pUnz flag] firk czt fd'kksj flag] 3- Mk0 mes'k pUnz flag] firk czt fd'kksj flag] 4- 'kEHkq ukjk;.k flag] firk jktnso flag] 5- lqjt ikloku] firk&yksfjd ikloku] 6- ds'ko dqekj flag] firk& jkeujs'k flag] 7- j?kqoa'k jk;] firk& carh jk; 8- eq0 ehuk dqaoj] ifr& Lo0 /kzqi ukjk;.k flag] 9- ds'ko dqekj flag] firk& jkeujs'k flag] 10- ds'ko dqekj flag] firk& jkeujs'k flag] 10- enu eksgu flag] firk&jkeujs'k flag] lHkh xzke&pSrk] Fkkuk&idM+hn;kyA bl uksfVl ds ek/;e ls vki lHkh dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd vapykf/kdkjh] idM+hn;ky ds }kjk tekcanh jn~nhdj.k gsrq izLrko la0& 03@24&25 lefiZr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa ekStk&pksjek] Fkkuk ua0&142 varxZr vuqeaMyh; O;ogkj U;k;ky; gsrq fpfUg~r ftjkr ekfyd dksBh dh Hkwfe [kkrk la0&105] [ksljk la0&09 dh fofHkUu jdck ds fufer lapkfyr tekcanh la0&2639] 2640] 2653] 324] 1494] 2241] 2275] 1526] 1527] 1540 ,oa 1541 dks jn~n djus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ gS] ftls lquokbZ gsrq xzg.k dj yh xbZ gS ,oa lquokbZ gsrq vxyh frfFk 12-09-2024 dks fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gSA Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025 10/12 vr% vkilHkh dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd lquokbZ gsrq fu/kkZfjr frfFk 12-09-2024 dks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksdj fyf[kr c;ku ds lkFk dkxth lk{; izLrqr djsa fd D;ksa ugha lefiZr izLrko ds vkyksd esa vkilHkh ds uke lapkfyr tekcanh la0& 2639] 2640] 2653] 324] 1494] 2241] 2275] 1526] 1527] 1540 ,oa 1541 dks jn~n dj fn;k tk;A bls l[r rkfdn tkusA vkt rkfj[k 05-09-2024 dks esjs gLrk{kj ,oa U;k;ky; ds eqgj ls tkjh fd;k x;kA g0@& vij lekgrkZ &lg& vij ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh iwohZ pEikj.k] eksfrgkjhA"
9. 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 petitioners. 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 cause serious prejudice. In this regard, reference can be made to a Supreme Court decision, reported in (1998) 8 S.C.C. 1 (Whirlpool Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025 11/12 Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Others).
10. From bare perusal of notice it is crystal clear that there was nothing to show that prima facie opinion of Additional Collector has been reflected in the notice issued. The said notice also not clarifies as to which law has been violated and which instruction has been contravened while creating jamabandi in favour of the petitioners. 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 petitioners. It cannot be said to have issued in conformity with the provision contained in Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, notice issued in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 42/24- 25 issued by the Additional Collector-cum- Additional District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari dated 05.09.2024 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) stands quashed. "
6. In the light of the submissions made, it transpires to this Court that Section 9 of the B.T. Act, 2012 Patna High Court CWJC No.962 of 2025 dt.28-01-2025 12/12 categorically says that the Additional Collector either suomotu or on an application shall have power to make inquiry in respect of any Jamabandi which has been created in violation of any law for the time being in force or in contravention to any executive instruction issued in this behalf. It transpires to this Court that both are lacking in the notice and, therefore, the notice issued to the petitioner is hereby quashed.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 31.01.2025 Transmission Date NA