Long-standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in summary proceedings as it undermines previously established property rights without due process.

JUDGMENT :

SATYAVRAT VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AC to SC-12 for the State.

2. The Additional District Magistrate and the Circle Officer, Khagaria in compliance of the order dated 10.02.2025 are present in the Court. The Circle Officer and the Additional District Magistrate, Khagaria in one voice submitted that a mistake has been committed and such mistake will not be committed in future. The A.D.M. also submitted that the Jamabandi Cancellation Cases, which were registered in her Court, for which I.A. No.01 of 2025 has been filed, presently has been stayed and the same shall be withdrawn.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land measuring 21 Bigha pertaining to Mauza- Chak Bhadaul in the District of Khagaria was settled by the Ex- Landlord in favour of Ali Ahmad Khan in the Year 1941-42. It is submitted that after the land was settled in favour of Ali Ahamad Khan, the said Ali Ahamad came in possession over the land. It is next submitted that in the Year 1968, a Partition Suit No.10 of 1968 was filed by Ali Ahmad Khan, in which Bibi Rafia Khanumin and others were impleaded as party defendants in the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge-II, Munger. It is further submitted that Partition Suit No.10 of 1968, on intervention of well-wishers, was compromised and accordingly, a compromise decree dated 21.11.1968 was prepared as would manifest from Annexure- P/1 to the writ application.

4. It is submitted that the land in question was allotted in the share of Masood Ahmad Khan, who got the land mutated in his favour. It is next submitted that Masood Ahmad on 17.12.1976 executed a power of attorney in favour of one Saifi Ahmad Khan for the purposes of selling the land in dispute. The said Saifi Ahmad in between 1976-1988 registered seven sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and their ancestors. It is submitted that in pursuance of purchase of the land in dispute by the petitioners and their ancestors in between 1976-1988, they applied for getting their name mutated over the land in question. Accordingly, Jamabandi No.8 was created in favour of Vijay Chand Prasad in the Year 1977, Jamabandi No.9 was created in favour of Manohar Prasad in the Year 1979, similarly Jamabandi No.10 was created in favour of Suresh Kumar in the Year 1979, Jamabandi No.7 was created in the name of Vijay Chand Prasad in the Year 1979 and Jamabandi No.11 was created in the name of the Director Manohar Prasad in the Year 1988. The learned counsel thus submits that the petitioners after purchasing the land in dispute came in possession and aforesaid Jamabandis were created in between 1977-1988.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that the petitioners after purchasing the land came in possession, as such, Jamabandi was also created in their favour as recorded herein above. It is next submitted that the Jamabandis are continuing for the last more than 44 years and rent of the land in question is being accepted by the State Government. It is submitted that the rent of the land in dispute has been paid up-till 2017, but after 2017, all of a sudden, the Government stopped accepting rent on the ground that the land in dispute is a Topo/ unsurveyed land. The learned counsel submits that when rent with respect to land in dispute was not being accepted by the State Government, as such, the petitioners were constrained to move before this Court by filing CWJC No.17572 of 2021 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 24.08.2022 in view of the plea taken by the State in their co