Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to annul long-standing Jamabandi under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, and actions must be initiated within a reasonable timeframe.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing of the entire proceeding being Sandhyathmak Jamabandi Case No. 26 of 2020-21 (impugned proceedings) along with the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 initiated against the petitioner on the ground that the entire proceedings are in violation to the principles of natural justice and is without jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner has submitted that the land forming subject matter of the instant petition is situated within Mouza-Yadutnad, Khata No. 1/50 appertaining to Plot No. 97/638, Plot No. 97/639 and Plot No. 97/640 (hereinafter referred to as the scheduled land). The scheduled land was settled in the favour of petitioner by the then Manager of the Estate, one Mr. B.P Singh vis-à-vis Hukumnama dated 15.10.1947. The Hukumnama was followed by the issuance of a rent receipt and delivery of effective raiyati possession. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner remained in possession over the scheduled property for a period of 12 (twelve) years and acquired the status of an occupancy raiyat.

Once the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 came into effect, the respondents recognized the raiyati status of the petitioner by opening a Jamabandi in his name in the year 1954-55. The State government has accepted the rent from the petitioner and receipts are being issued in his name.

Learned counsel has further submitted that a notice dated 27.01.2012 was received in the name of the petitioner with respect to Sandhyahmak Jamabandi Case No. 12 of 2011-12. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared before the Circle Officer, Koderma and submitted all the necessary documents after which no further proceedings were undertaken. A fresh notice was issued in the name of the petitioner on 4.1.2021. The petitioner gave a reply to the aforesaid notice. However, without considering the reply given by the petitioner, the Revenue Official submitted his report with a recommendation to initiate proceedings for cancellation of Jamabandi as against the petitioner. It was on basis of this report that the impugned proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner. A notice dated 7.9.2022 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit the documents with respect to the scheduled land.

The petitioner, in conformity with the notice appeared before respondent No. 4 and submitted his reply. However, without considering the reply and without holding any enquiry, respondent no. 4, directed the cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioner vide its order dated 23.12.2022 (impugned order).

On the basis of the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned proceedings are barred by res judicata. He has also submitted that the order is without jurisdiction and is contrary to Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as the Revenue Officers cannot interfere with long-standing Jamabandi. Lastly, it has been contented that the impugned order was passed without proper opportunity to the Petitioner and the impugned order is fit to be set aside was violation of the principles of natural justice.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgement rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Dornan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2024 (1) JLJR 289) to contend that the entire proceedings fail for want of jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dornan Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (supra) has held that the Deputy Commissioner has no power to initiate procee