SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 318

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Narendra Kumar Karn, Son Of Keshab Lal Das - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (C.) No. 1036 of 2012
Decided On : 30-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate, Ms. Puja Agrawal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Prashant Rai, Advocate

Long-standing Jamabandi cannot be annulled without proper jurisdiction; authorities cannot cancel orders made without lawful authority, as established in the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Writ petition filed to quash orders passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector and Deputy Commissioner dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding land ownership. Order sought to quash was based on the alleged jurisdictional incompetences regarding land held by a deity. (Paras 2-26)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court reiterated that long running Jamabandi cannot be annulled without appropriate authority. Orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities and cannot be enforced. The court emphasized the need for jurisdiction in revenue matters and that the fraud voids proceedings. (Paras 8, 18, 21-24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of land registered under the name of a deity and acted through its Shebait. Issues of jurisdiction regarding land transfer and jamabandi processes were contested after attempts to dispossess the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court found the impugned orders were devoid of jurisdiction and the authorities misapplied the law regarding land held for public purposes.

Issues: Whether the orders were legally sustainable, the applicability of Section 4(h), and the legitimacy of established Jamabandi.

Ratio Decidendi: Long-standing Jamabandi can only be overturned legally, and any cancellations made without authority are nullities. The authorities need to act lawfully in matters of land recorded under deities and public use.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim on land ownership (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. jurisdiction and reasons for annulment (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. state's defense of land ownership (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. implications of jurisdiction in cancellations (Para 14 , 15 , 18)
5. fraud implications in landownership (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. final judgment dismissing the petition (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No.06 of 2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector under Section 4(h) in Case No.26 of 2007-08 has been dismissed. The prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Case No.26 of 2007-08 whereby he has been pleased to pass an order in respect of Jamabandi No.33 and 62 and has further cancelled the Jamabandi No.237 created in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Mutation Case No.1640 (IX)/2008-09.

3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Ms. Puja Agrawal, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner submits that this writ petition involves a piece of land situated at Khata No.33, Plot No.323, Mouza Gahira, Mauza No.218, Police Station – Govindpur, District – Dhanbad measuring 6.76 acres. He further submits that the said land in question along with other piece and parcel of lands stood recorded in the name of Shri Shri Shyam Chand Jee Thakur, the deity and it was being represented through its “Shebait”, namely Dol Gobindo Goswami and after the death of Dol Gobindo Goswami his only son Jyotindra Mohan Goswami succeeded as a “Shebait” and came into peaceful possession of the lands and begun to perform pooja archana and seva of “deity” and exercise diverse acts of ownership and possession over the land in question and other lands. He then submits that after coming into force of the Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT , 1950, said Jyotindra Mohan Goswami (since deceased) submitted returns in respect of the lands in question along with other properties and applied for fair and equitable rent or ground rent and on the basis thereof a case being Rent Fixation Case No.805 of 1961-62 was initiated before the Certificate Officer, Govindpur, who after making necessary inquiries in accordance with Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT and Rules made thereunder, assessed the rent and issued rent roll in Form ‘M’ in respect of the tracts of land owned and possession by the “deity” being represented through Jyotindra Mohan Goswami (since deceased) including the land in question for a total area of 17.33 acres and thereafter the said Jyotindra Mohan Goswami (since deceased) paid rent for the entire area of land of 17.33 acres including the land in question under Jamabandi No.62.

4. He next submits that the land in question was peacefully held and possessed by the “deity” through its “Shebait” all along without any interference by any person including the State Government and the land in question was held out by the “deity” through its “Shebait” to be in lawful occupation and ownership and after the death of said Jyotindra Mohan Goswami, his son Manik Chandra Goswami succeeded to the office and properties as a “Shebait” and continued to pay rent to the State Government under Jamabandi No.62 which were accepted by the State Authorities. He also submits that respondent No.4, namely, Manik Chandra Goswami was desirous of transferring the lands in question for valuable consideration in order to meet out legal necessity and requirements of expenses and as such, the petitioner being interested in purchasing the land in question approached the respondent No.2 and an agreement to sell was executed on 15.07.2005.

5. He next submits that on 04.10.2007

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top