In David Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2026), Justice Sourendra Pandey of Patna High Court delivered a 17-page long judgement dated April 10, 2026, wherein he concluded:"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 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."
Justice Pandey framed the dispute involved as to whether the order passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur setting aside the order upholding the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner is beyond jurisdiction; and whether the title needs to be seen prima facie before coming to a finding with regard to cancellation/creation of a Jamabandi.
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 well settled principle that mutation proceeding do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes.
Supreme Court has held that mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and the same has been reiterated in Suraj Bhan vs. Financial Commissioner, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186.
Justice Pandey observed that the Collector, Bhagalpur dealt with the factual aspect of the matter in detail and 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 Nand Kumar Yadav, the respondent No. 6 and, thereafter, came to a conclusion that the dispute between the parties relates to a dispute of title, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Collector and it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court. He pointed out that the Collector, Bhagalpur observed that the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur had decided the matter with regard to the factual aspect of the matter and, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Collector dated May 21, 2018 was set aside and the proceeding was closed. On perusal of the order passed by the Additional Collector in a Jamabandi Cancellation Case of 2017-18,, it was found that the Additional Collector 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 order being set aside in a miscellaneous case by the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur and affirmed by the High Court and, therefore, the claim of title of the father of respondent No. 6 was 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. From the order of the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur, it was 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. The Additional Collector, Bhagalpur was that he had also directed for cancellation of Jamabandi No. 189, which also had continued during the said period and had, thus, directed for cancellation of such Jamabandi standing in the name of the father of respondent No. 6.
Justice Pandey took 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. He relied on the High Court's decision in Maya Devi & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 PLJR, 584.
Justice Pandey observed: "....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 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."
The writ application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated May 31, 2021 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur in Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal Case No. 121/2019-20, whereby the order dated May 21, 2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur in Jamabandi Cancellation Case of 2017-18 was set aside.
No comments:
Post a Comment