AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Vikash Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.5 and Mr. Navin Kumar, the learned G.P.IV appearing for the respondent-State.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 11.06.2012 passed by Additional Collector, Palamau in Misc. Case No.13 of
2010-11 contained in Annexure-4 whereby he has illegally cancelled the long standing Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners with respect to
the land measuring 8.02 acres comprised within plot nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 50, 77, 136, 165, 216, 300, 305, 310, 345, 524 and 528 under Khata
No.13 situated at Mauza Okraha, P.S. Chhatarpur, District Palamau.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are legal heirs of the settlee-Basudeo
Singh and jointly remained in khas possession over the said land without any let or hindrance from any corner and after their death their legal heirs
who are the petitioners have inherited the property. He further submits that the petitioners are in possession of the property which is evident from the
report submitted by Circle Officer contained in Annexure-5. He further submits that the requirement was to look into the possession of the property in
question. He further submits that Additional Collector has got no power to cancel the long standing jamabandi.
The learned counsel appearing for the private-respondent submits that there is no illegality in the order of the Additional Collector. He further
submits that his case is well-covered under the case of “State of Bihar and Ors. v. Labendra Chand Bothra and Ors.†reported in 1995 (2) PLJR
(S.C) 21.
Mr. Navin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State is in fix to submit anything with regard to jurisdiction of the
Additional Collector and in view of the paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit he submits that the Additional Collector has got no power to cancel the
long standing jamabandi.
Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by way of distinguishing the judgment relied by the private-respondent
submits that the fact of that case is different from the current one. He submits that in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court a proceeding
under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1995 was initiated whereas in the case in hand power has been exercised by the authority who has
no power under the Act that there is no proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act. He further submits that the private-respondent has got remedy only
in the civil court. To substantiate his arguments, he relied in the case of “Jitan Mahto & Anr. v. The State of Bihar & 5 Ors.†reported in 2004 (1)
JLJR 718. Paragraph no.5 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
“5. Be that as it may, from the pleading of the parties, it appears that the name of the petitioner has been running in the revenue record
since 1969, the respondents had no authority to cancel the Zamabandi merely at the instant of the respondent no.6. It was for the
respondent no.6 to go to the Civil Court for adjudication of his right, title and interest in the property. The impugned orders cancelling the
Zamabandi passed by the respondents are directly against the settled principles of law, the said cannot be sustained in lawâ€
Having heard the counsels for the parties, this Court finds that Additional Collector has got no power to cancel the long standing Jamabandi and this
fact has been admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State. The case relied by the learned counsel for the private
respondent is not applicable in this case as there is no proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act and the order has been passed by an authority who is
having no power to cancel the long standing Jamabandi.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.06.2012 cannot sustain in the eye of law and thus, it is quashed.
The writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3380 of 2014 stands allowed and disposed of.