The main legal point established in the judgment is that revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction to decide disputed issues of title, and the creation of Jamabandi is not an adjudication on the issue of title.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 26.5.1998 passed by the Additional Collector, Patna in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1997-98 whereby the Additional Collector has confirmed the order dated 27.6.1997 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992-93 whereunder the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled. Copy of the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms are annexed vide Annexures 7 and 6 respectively to the writ petition.

2. The land in dispute pertains to Khata No. 367 (Khata No.342 in the impugned orders), Plot No. 855 Tauzi No. 2901 having an area of 4.74 acres situated in Mauza Naubatpur in the district of Patna. The land is recorded as ‘Gairmajarua Parti Kadim’ and is in the nature of ‘Bakast’ land of the ex-landlord. The petitioner claimed to be the proprietor of the land having received the same through partition vide Partition Case No. 42 of 1921-22.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question forms part of the Tauzi No. 2901 which relates to the lands owned by the family and finds mention in the return filed. On the other hand, the private respondents claim ownership over the land by virtue of settlement by the ex-landlord.

4. Mr. Mahesh Narain Parbat, learned Senior counsel has appeared for the petitioner while the State is represented by Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, G.P.2 and the private respondents are represented by Mr. Radhe Shyam Prasad.

5. Mr. Parbat, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in question was owned by the family of the petitioner and in a family partition the said land came to be allotted in the share of the present petitioner, vide Partition Case No. 42 of 1921-22. He submits that these land finds mention in the return filed by the family. He submits that in the year 1985 the petitioner filed Rent Fixation Case No. 1 of 1985-86 for fixation of rent. The attempt by the petitioner was opposed by the private respondents which resulted in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) and which was drawn in favour of the petitioners and even the Cr. Rev.No.570 of 1986 preferred by the private respondents was dismissed. He submits that the private respondents not being satisfied attempted to initiate a second proceeding under Section 144 of ‘the Code’ and under the orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate the same was dropped with a further direction to the Circle Officer to examine the same. He submits that the direction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate resulted in registration of Misc. Case No. 3 of 1992-93 and the Circle Officer submitted his report to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DCLR’) certifying the possession of the petitioner on the land in question. It is submitted that despite the position that the factual finding of the Circle Officer in his report remained unchallenged, the ‘DCLR’ on complete misconception of fact and law proceeded to cancel the Jamabandi vide order dated 27.6.1997 placed at Annexure- 6 and which has been affirmed by the Additional Collector vide order passed on 26.5.1998 present at Annexure-7.

6. It is the argument of Mr. Parbat learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that once the Circle Officer has recorded a finding as regarding possession of the petitioner on the disputed land to open the Jamabandi on the basis of materials on record which finds discussed in the orders itself, there was no occasion nor any jurisdiction vested in the DCLR to cancel the Jamabandi. He submits that even the Additional Collector affirmed the order of the DCLR on the sole point that the order of the Circle Officer to open the Jamabandi was not with due approval of he Sub Divisional Officer who is the competent authority. He sub