Case Background
The case started with land at Mauza Darbhanga, Circle Madanpur, District Aurangabad, recorded in Khata no. 52, Plot no. 263, area 61 decimals.
According to the petitioners, this land was earlier recorded as “Gairmazarua Mallik” in the revisional survey. In the year 1970-71, it was settled in favour of their father, Ram Das Chamar @ Ramdas Ram, in Settlement Case no. 510 of 1970-71.
After this settlement, Jamabandi was created in his name and rent receipts were issued. The petitioners stated that they remained in continuous possession of the land and built their residential house there.
Later, one Kaushlendra Kumar Ram moved an application before the Circle Officer, Madanpur, seeking measurement of his land. A measurement report was prepared. Dissatisfied with that report, he filed a revision before the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.
The Commissioner passed an ex parte order on 08.07.2017. In that order, the Commissioner directed that the Parcha be cancelled and possession of the land in question be taken by the authorities.
After this, the petitioners and Kaushlendra Kumar Ram entered into a compromise and settled their dispute privately. A compromise petition was also filed before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. However, no further action was taken on that compromise in the official record as per the petitioners’ case.
Subsequently, the Additional Collector, Aurangabad (respondent no. 3) initiated Jamabandi Cancellation Proceeding Case no. 214 of 2017-18. On 02.01.2018, he passed an order cancelling the Jamabandi of the petitioners in respect of Khata no. 52, Plot no. 263. The Jamabandi of Kaushlendra Kumar Ram relating to the land in question was also cancelled.
Following this, the Circle Officer, Madanpur (respondent no. 4) initiated encroachment proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956, registered as Encroachment Case no. 24 of 2017-18.
On 06.03.2018, the Circle Officer issued a notice in that encroachment case, addressed in the name of the petitioners’ father, who had died about 20 years earlier. The notice was for demolition of the petitioners’ residential house on the ground that it was an encroachment on public land.
Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction. They sought quashing of both the order dated 02.01.2018 cancelling the Jamabandi and the notice dated 06.03.2018 initiating encroachment proceedings and threatening demolition of their house.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah, examined the challenge to two main actions of the authorities:
First, the Court looked at the order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad in Jamabandi Cancellation Proceeding Case no. 214 of 2017-18. This order had cancelled the Jamabandi of the petitioners relating to Khata no. 52, Plot no. 263.
Second, the Court considered the encroachment proceedings, Encroachment Case no. 24 of 2017-18, initiated by the Circle Officer, Madanpur, and the notice dated 06.03.2018 for removal of the petitioners’ house as an alleged encroachment under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.
The petitioners argued that the settlement in favour of their father, made in Settlement Case no. 510 of 1970-71, was validly done and Jamabandi was properly created in his name. They pointed out that rent receipts had been issued, and they had been in long-term possession of the land for decades.
They complained that the Additional Collector cancelled their Jamabandi without giving them a proper hearing and without recording any reason in his order. In their view, this was arbitrary and illegal.
They further submitted that once their Jamabandi was wrongly cancelled, the authorities treated their house as an encroachment and started proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. The Circle Officer issued the demolition notice in the name of their deceased father, about 20 years after his death, which also showed the mechanical approach of the authorities.
On the other hand, the State authorities, in their counter affidavit, gave a different perspective. They admitted that the land had been settled in favour of the petitioners’ father, but stated that it was for the purpose of cultivation for his livelihood.
They said that, upon inquiry, it was found that the petitioners’ father had constructed a house on the land instead of using it for cultivation. Because of this finding, the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, passed the order dated 08.07.2017 directing cancellation of the Jamabandi and taking possession of the land.
After the Commissioner’s order, the Additional Collector initiated Jamabandi Cancellation Proceeding Case no. 214 of 2017-18. By order dated 02.01.2018, he cancelled the Jamabandi of both the petitioners and of Kaushlendra Kumar Ram relating to the land in question. Thereafter, encroachment proceedings were started for removal of the alleged encroachment made by the petitioners.
Having heard both sides and examined the record, the Court focused closely on the legality of the Additional Collector’s order dated 02.01.2018.
The Court undertook a “bare perusal” of this impugned order. It found that the order did not furnish any reasons at all for cancelling the Jamabandi of the petitioners.
The Court noted that the land had, in fact, been validly settled in favour of the petitioners’ deceased father by creation of Jamabandi in Settlement Case no. 510 of 1970-71. In the face of such a valid settlement, any cancellation of Jamabandi had to be backed by clear reasons showing why such a serious step was justified.
However, the order dated 02.01.2018 contained no reasoning. It did not discuss the original settlement, did not record any finding on illegality in the settlement, and did not address why the petitioners’ Jamabandi needed to be cancelled.
The Court held that giving reasons is an essential component of a decision-making process by public authorities. An order affecting valuable rights in immovable property cannot be passed in an arbitrary manner or with a non-speaking order.
Because the impugned order gave no reasons, the Court described it as arbitrary, illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The absence of reasons itself was enough for the Court to strike down the order.
On this basis, the Court quashed the order dated 02.01.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Aurangabad in Case no. 214 of 2017-18.
After quashing this foundational order, the Court turned to the encroachment proceedings. The encroachment case had been initiated only after the Jamabandi was cancelled. The entire basis for treating the petitioners’ house as an encroachment was that their Jamabandi had been cancelled and the land had been treated as public land.
Once the cancellation order was set aside, that basis no longer existed. The Court expressly held that, in view of the quashing of the Jamabandi cancellation order, the encroachment proceedings initiated by the Circle Officer, Madanpur in Encroachment Case no. 24 of 2017-18 “has also got no legs to stand”.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the encroachment proceedings as well, including the notice for demolition issued on 06.03.2018.
In the final result, the writ petition was allowed. The petitioners obtained relief from both the cancellation of their land record and the threatened demolition under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for landholders and occupants in Bihar who have valid Jamabandi entries but face sudden cancellation by revenue authorities.
The Patna High Court made it clear that when the government cancels a Jamabandi, it must give reasons. A simple, unexplained order is not enough. Such orders can be struck down as arbitrary.
The decision also shows that encroachment proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 cannot stand if the basic order treating the land as public is itself illegal.
In practical terms, families occupying land under old settlements can rely on this ruling to insist that any move to cancel their Jamabandi or to label their houses as encroachments must follow fair procedure and must be supported by clear reasons on record.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the Additional Collector could cancel the petitioners’ Jamabandi without recording reasons in the order dated 02.01.2018.
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the order was arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable because it gave no reasons for cancelling a validly created Jamabandi. - Issue: Whether encroachment proceedings under Encroachment Case no. 24 of 2017-18 could continue after the Jamabandi cancellation order was quashed.
Answer: No. Once the cancellation order was set aside, the encroachment case “had no legs to stand” and was also set aside.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely upon any specific previous case law by name or citation.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8431 of 2018
Case Title: Birendra Ram @ Virendra Ram & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2022(4) PLJR 663
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Date of Judgment: 30.08.2022
Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents (State of Bihar): Mr. Rishi Raj Sinha, SC 19; Mr. Atul Shanker, AC to SC 19
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging cancellation of Jamabandi and initiation of encroachment proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956.
Link to the Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment on the Patna High Court website
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
