The court emphasized the importance of verifying the legality and validity of the cancellation of the Jamabandi, especially in light of the earlier dropped proceeding and the existence of a pending title suit.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner are present.

2. Nobody appears on behalf on behalf of the respondent-State.

3. On 06.05.2013, the learned counsel for the State was granted time to file a counter-affidavit in the present case, but no counter-affidavit has been filed.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“That this writ application is directed against the order dated 21.09.2012 passed in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 11/2011-12, 12/2011-12, 13/2011-12 and 14/2011-12 passed by the Additional Collector (Revenue), Dhanbad pursuant to a report dated 08.06.2012 submitted by the land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad through Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad respondent no. 3 to 5 respectively as contained in Annexure-5 and 8 and to this writ petition which are illegal and fit to be quashed/set aside since long standing Jamabandi in the name of mother of the petitioner pursuant to the settlement dated 11.01.1941 by registered deed of settlement (Deed No. 175 dated 11.01.1941) and the B.P.L.E. Case No. 15(III) of 2006-07 and B.P.L.E. Case No. 16(III) of 2006-07 against petitioner have been dropped accepting the petitioner as raiyats of the land in dispute, since 11.01.1941, hence the order dated 21.09.2012 is illegal and fit to be quashed. AND during the pendency of the writ petition, the operation of the order dated 21.09.2012 passed by Additional Collector, Dhanbad in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 11 to 14 of 2011-2012 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition may be stayed and respondents may be restrained from giving effect to the aforesaid order dated 21.09.2012.”

5. While giving the foundational background of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide registered deed of settlement bearing deed no. 175 dated 11.01.1941 executed by ex-landlord Rani Smt. Hemkumari widow of Late Raja Durga Prasad Singh, she settled five plots of land i.e. plot nos. 1164, 1165, 1166, 711 and 1161 measuring 5 bighas (1.65 acres) out of khata no. 35/36 of Khewat No. 2 of Mouza Bhuda (Mouza No. 48) with Fulkumari Kaharin wife of Jadu Kahar, resident of Mouza Bhuda, District Dhanbad and put her in possession over the land. The petitioner is the son of Fulkumari Kaharin. The deed of settlement is annexed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

6. It is further case of the petitioner that Fulkumari Kaharin paid rent to the ex-landlord and remained in peaceful cultivated possession over the aforesaid plots since 11.01.1941 without any obstruction.

7. A notice dated 03.01.1984 was issued to Fulkumari Kaharin in terms of section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Dhanbad.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice issued under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was challenged by Fulkumari Kaharin in a writ petition numbered as CWJC No. 38 of 1984(R).

9. The learned counsel submits that although the said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner having challenged the notice itself, this Court was not inclined to enter into the jurisdictional fact, but this Court issued a direction to the Land Reform Deputy Collector to decide the point by way of preliminary issue.

10. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 38 of 1984(R), an order dated 28.10.1989 was passed and the proceeding under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act was dropped. He submits that the said order attained finality and the petitioner continued to remain in peaceful possession of the property.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thereafter, Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 11 of 2011-12 was initiated against Fulkumari Kaharin by the Land Reform Deputy Collector and was tagged with other cases with which the petitioner is not concerned.

12