JUDGMENT :

1. These two cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by the present common judgment and order, since they involve similar issues and disputes of similar nature.

2. These writ application have been filed, challenging the initiation of jamabandi cancellation proceeding with registration of Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 221/2016-17 and issuance of notice to these petitioners, on the ground that the notice itself is beyond jurisdiction since the notice does not disclose the mandatory requirement, as contemplated under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 (for short ‘the Act’) for initiation of an action for cancellation of Jamabandi.

3. Section 9 of the Act contemplates that the Additional Collector, either suo motu or on an application, shall have the ‘power to make inquiries in respect of any Jamabandi, which has been created in violation of any law for the time being in force or in contravention of any executive instruction issued in this behalf’. Sub-section (1) further requires that the Additional Collector, in whose jurisdiction the land is situated, may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned to appeal, adduce evidence and be heard, cancel such Jamabandi, dispossess the person claiming under it and deliver the possession to the legitimate owner/custodian, on such terms as may appear to the Additional Collector to be fair and equitable.

4. Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in both the cases, has submitted that the notice does not indicate that the Jamabandi, which was created in favour of the petitioners, was in violation of any law for the time being in force or the same was in contravention of any executive instruction issued in this behalf. He has also submitted that the Jamabandi had been rightly created in conformity with the decision of the Additional Collector, Purnia dated 31.10.1969 in a proceeding under Section 108A of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 in Case No. 6702 of 1964-65 on a petition for correction of entries in record of rights in respect of Khata No. 388, appertaining to Mouza Hadiya, Thana No. 196. The order-sheet of the said proceeding has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 to the writ applications. My attention has been drawn to the operative portion of the said order dated 31.10.1969 which reads thus:-

^^bl dksVZ dks [kfr;ku esa cksuksQkbM feLVsd ns[kuk gS vkSj ftruk jdok dk ipkZ cuk gS mruk jdok dk [kfr;ku Hkh cuk gSA ÁŒfoŒiŒ dk Áfrosnu Hkh gS fd [kfr;ku ds vykos tehu fcgkj ljdkj ds uke ls gksuk pkfg,A iqjkuk [kfr;ku Hkh pjhjeuk] xSjt:vk ekfyd gSA vr% vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd [kljk uEcj 1033 dk vf/kd jdok tks 83 ,Œ ls vf/kd gS ;kfu ¼132 ,Œ 30 MhŒ ?kVko 83 ,Œ½ 84 ,Œ 30 MhŒ@49 mUupkl ,Œ rhlŒ MhŒ ds [kljk [kkrk uEcj-----nsdj fcgkj ljdkj ds [kkrk esa ntZ fd;k tk;A vkosnd dk [kfr;ku T;ksa dk R;ksa jgsxkA**

(Emphasis added)

5. Referring to the said order, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that these petitioners are concerned with 83 acre of land, as referred to in the said order dated 31.10.1969 and they are not at all concerned with the rest of the land admeasuring 49 acres 30 decimals. He has submitted that the petitioners are purchasers of the lands covered by the said 83 acres as indicated in the order dated 31.10.1969.

6. Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, learned SC-25, appearing for the State of Bihar, has drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed in this case in I.A.No. 9987 of 2016 and has submitted that the Additional Collector has initiated proceeding for cancellation of Jamabandi after having received report/material from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, Circle Officer and Anchal Amin to the effect that the lands which were held to be belonging to the State of Bihar by order dated 31.10.1969 on which reliance is being placed on behalf of the petitioners, also form part of the Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioners. According to him, the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer in this re