The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of notice before cancellation of Jamabandi and the legal remedy of filing a civil suit for such cancellations.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. HUSSAIN)

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities as well as learned counsel for the private respondents.

2. This case has a chequered history as initially CWJC No.4905 of 1994, CWJC No.5014 of 1994 and CWJC No.1606 of 1995 were filed by three different sets of persons against the respondents, who were common in all the three writ petitions. In all the aforesaid three writ petitions, the subject matter of challenge was the order of Circle Officer, Bijayipur, District Gopalganj dated 30.12.1992 cancelling Jamabandi in favour of the petitioners and creating Jamabandi in favour of private respondents and also the order of the Collector Gopalganj dated 08.03.1994 giving directions with respect to the aforesaid order of the Circle Officer. All the said writ petitions were contested by the respondents and were finally allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 01.02.1996 and the impugned orders under challenge were quashed on the grounds (i) that no notice was given to the writ petitioners before cancellation of their Jamabandi; (ii) that Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the said authority, rather civil suit is the only remedy; and (iii) that since the title suit with respect to the same subject matter is pending disposal before the competent civil court which fact was neither controverted by the private respondents in their counter affidavit nor it was denied by the counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents in course of argument.

3. Against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.1996 passed in CWJC No.4905 of 1994 and CWJC No.1606 of 1995, the private respondents of the writ petitions filed L.P.A. No.327 of 1996 and L.P.A. No.326 of 1996 respectively. It is very important to note that against the similar order dated 01.02.1996 passed in CWJC No.5014 of 1994, no L.P.A. was filed by the same respondents of the writ petition who were also respondents in the other two writ petitions and they had filed L.P.A.s with respect to the order passed in the other writ petitions. Hence, order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 01.02.1996 passed in CWJC No.5014 of 1994 has attained finality.

4. L.P.A. No.326 of 1996 and L.P.A. No.327 of 1996 were heard together and were dismissed by separate orders of the same date, i.e. 02.11.2006, after considering the claims of both the parties in detail. Against the aforesaid order in their two L.P.A.s dated 02.11.2006, appellants filed Civil Review No.212 of 2006 and Civil Review No.213 of 2006 which were heard together and were allowed by different orders both dated 20.03.2013 recalling order dated 02.11.2006 passed in the two L.P.As which were restored to their original files and numbers. Thereafter both the aforesaid L.P.A.s have been listed before this Court for consideration.

5. From a bare perusal of the orders passed in the two review cases it transpires that it had been passed on the grounds that the Division Bench while disposing of the two letters patent appeals was swayed away by the fact that the civil suit was pending before the authorities, whereas according to learned counsel for the review petitioners the suit was not pending on the date, L.P.As were disposed of and this fact was not brought to the notice of the Court.

6. It further transpires that the review court in its order dated 20.03.2013 had taken notice only of the point with respect to the pendency of the suit at the time of order passed in the appeal, but the other two aspects of the matter, namely absence of notice to the writ petitioners before cancellation of their Jamabandi and cancellation of Jamabandi by the authority having no jurisdiction had not been considered at all.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants was given full opportunity to show that notices were given to the writ petitioners before cancellation of their Jamabandi, but apart from one statement on affidavit, there is no mat