JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16329 of 2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants came to be disposed of with liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are that pursuant to the order dated 05.09.2022 passed in CWJC No. 18397 of 2018, the District Magistrate was directed to dispose of the representation by a reasoned order. In compliance thereof, the Collector passed order dated 20.06.2023 holding that the land in question belonged to the State of Bihar and recommending cancellation of the Jamabandi created in favour of the appellants. The appellants contend that the land in question was recorded as Gairmajarua Khas and Bakastha under the possession of their ancestors, and that upon vesting they were entitled to be treated as settled raiyats. Aggrieved by the Collector’s order, they preferred CWJC No. 16329 of 2023, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge relegating them to the Civil Court.

4. The learned Writ Court, after hearing the parties, passed the following orders:

“7. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the order under challenge, it transpires to this Court that the order passed by the Collector is in three parts. In the first part, it has been decided by the Collector that in the present facts and circumstances, the question of title is involved for which only competent authority is the civil court, and therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a title suit for declaration of the title in their favour.

8. The second part is the principles of law decided and in the opinion of the Court, the said principle is also in favour of the petitioners whereas in the third part, it is mere recommendation to initiate the proceedings for cancellation of Jamabandi in accordance with law. This part of the order is absolutely lawful and there is no need of any interference in the opinion of the Court.

9. As such, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to avail remedy before the competent civil court. So far as the question of cancellation of Jamabandi is concerned, petitioners shall be at liberty to file any appropriate petition before the competent civil court to get such relief or to contest the case as and when the occasion shall arise upon receiving notice in the Jamabandi cancellation proceeding.

10. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ application is hereby disposed of.”

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the condition precedent for invoking power under Section 9 of the Bihar Mutation Act has not been satisfied in the present case. It is further submitted that the authorities under the Act are creatures of statute and are tribunals of limited jurisdiction, obliged to act strictly within the four corners of the statute, and any action taken beyond the statutory framework is void ab initio.

6. Learned counsel further submits that a long-standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding by a Revenue Officer. In support of the said submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harendranath Tiwari vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1987 Supp SCC 56; Prithvi Nath Singh vs. Suraj Ahir, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1041; and further upon the judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar Goenka vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2023 (5) BLJ 321.

7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land in question stood recorded as “Gairmajarua Khas” and was “Bakastha” land under actual physical possession of the ancestors of the appellants on the date of vesting and, therefore, they are entitled to be treated as settled raiyats under the State. It is further s