Dr. Anshuman, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

“(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside the notice dated 05.09.2024 issued in connection with Jamabandi Cancellation No.42/2024-25 (Temp Filing No.17417 dated 05.09.2024) from the office of Additional Collector, East Champaran whereby petitioner is asked to show cause as to why the Jamabandi running in his name i.e., Jamabandi No.324 with respect of land pertaining to Mauza Chorma, Thana No.142, Khata No.105, Khesra No.09 be not cancelled.

(b) For issuance of an appropriate order staying the further proceeding of the Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.42/2024-25 (Temp Filing No.17417 dated 05.09.2024) pending before the Additional Collector, East Champaran.

(c) For any other relief and reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled in the opinion of this Hon’ble High Court.”

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the land, which is subject matter of the present case is as mentioned in the impugned notice i.e., Khata No.105, Plot No.9, area 70 Bigha 2 Katha 4 Dhur, recorded in the name of Zeerat Malik and Thikedar and the nature of land was shown as Bhit. As from the Khatiyan it is apparent that Malik of the said land used to be the Siraha Kothi and the same was recorded in the Khewat No.2. Accordingly, the land was in the personal occupation of the recorded Malik and they have full control over the land. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that notice under Section 9 for cancellation of Jamabandi has been issued. Counsel submits that for the same plot in which notice has been issued to total 11 persons in which petitioner has been figured at serial No.4 has filed the present writ petition whereas the two persons of the same notice Susma Singh and Dr. Umesh Chandra Singh have filed writ petition bearing CWJC No.18863 of 2024 challenging the notice issued by Additional Collector under Section 9 for cancellation of Jamabandi has been entertained by this Court and since there was lacking of ingredients of Section 9 in the notice on this ground the said notice was said to be non-jurisdictional and it was quashed so far as petitioner is concerned. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner in the said notice at serial No.4 the facts and circumstances of both the cases are absolutely identical. Hence, the present case is squarely covered by virtue of judgment dated 10.12.2024 passed in CWJC No.18863 of 2024.

4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that it transpires from the pleading that petitioner is one of the persons to whom notice in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.42/2024-25 has been made. Learned Counsel further submits that the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of CWJC No.18863 of 2024. He submits that appropriate order may be passed in this circumstance.

5. After hearing the parties and going through the pleadings it transpires to this Court that in Section 9 of the Mutation Act 2011, there are series of decisions which has been annexed by this Court i.e., CWJC No.16269 of 2024 (Ram Naresh Roy and Others vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 24.10.2024, CWJC No.3336 of 2024 (Kumar Nawlesh @ Kumar Nawlesh Roy and Others vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 28.02.2024, CWJC No.19368 of 2021 (Rina Devi vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 11.01.2024 and CWJC No.19368 of 2021 (Rina Devi vs. The State of Bihar) decided on 11.01.2024, the operating part of these decisions are as follows:

CWJC No.16269 of 2024 [: 2024 (5) BLJ 599] (Ram Naresh Roy and Others vs. The State of Bihar).

“7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court, prima facie, is of the view that notice has been issued without recording the reason based on which Jamabandi cancellation case has been instituted as the notice does not record that as to which law or executive instruction were violated when initially the Jamabandi