Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – This writ application has been filed for quashing the initiation of jamabandi cancellation proceeding which was registered as Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 25/2021-22 and further to quash the notice dated 13.07.2021 issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 as the notice itself is beyond jurisdiction since the notice does not disclose the reason which is the mandatory requirement, as contemplated under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Mutaion Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 2011’) and also to grant any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to including the cost of this proceeding.

2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the land appertaining to Khata no. 616, Survey Plot no. 314 (in part) area ad-measuring 10 dhur which is equivalent to 1.5625 decimal of land situated at Mauza - Manpur Bairiya, Thana Code no. 174, Tauzi no. - 360 has been purchased by the petitioner through absolute sale-deed dated 11.03.2015 from Ranjan Kumar and Chandan Kumar both sons of Sri Surendra Prasad Sinha. After the purchase of aforesaid land through the registered sale-deed, the petitioner applied for mutation before the respondent no. 3 which was registered as, Mutation Case No. 2338/04 / 2014-15 and after verification the name of the petitioner is mutated and jamabandi has been created in favour of the petitioner. But all of a sudden, the petitioner received a one page notice i.e. Annexure - 1 from the court of Additional Collector (respondent no. 2) that jamabandi cancellation proceeding has been initiated against her (petitioner) and petitioner has to appear on 02.09.2021 and to contest the matter otherwise ex-parte order will be passed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 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 initiation of an action for cancellation of jamabandi. The notice is completely vague, cryptic and does not disclose any application of mind. No ground has been mentioned on which the initiation of cancellation of jamabandi proceeding has been initiated and as such, notice is required to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of State, while opposing the prayer made on behalf of petitioner and referring to different paragraphs made in the counter affidavit, submits that in the weekly meeting for redressal of the grievances of the people jointly by the concerned police station and Circle Officer, one Vijay Kumar Sinha has filed complaint against Ranjan Kumar, Anil Mehta, Sunil Kumar Sinha and Bali Rai that they are creating dispute over his land. In this regard, the Revenue Karmachari was directed to submit his report with regard to the land in question and in compliance thereof, he submitted report pertaining to the land under Mauza-Bairiya, Thana no.-122, Khata no.-616. Plot no.-314, area-13 dismil and Plot no.- 350, area-17 dismil along with the of name the raiyats and jamabandi number created over the said lands. Thereafter, notice was issued to all the concerned persons, in which, it was found that the Plot no.-314 and 350 are vacant land and there is dispute between both the parties with regard to possession over the land. The Circle Officer, Sampatchak, after considering all facts on record, has observed that there is serious dispute with regard to the claim made by the parties over the land in question and the jamabandies created in their favour without verification proper and without the possession of the land by the concerned persons. Thus order dated 26.03.2021 has been passed by the then Circle Officer, Sampatchak, whereby recommendation has been made for cancellation of the jamabandi which has been created without any basis. Thus, the matter has been referred to the Additional Collector, Patna for needful in the matter.

5. It is next submitted on behalf of the State that