AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
27/11.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.6.
Notices upon respondent Nos.7 to 15 have already been validly served in light of order dated 12.02.2016, however, they have chosen not to appear.
This matter was adjourned on 27.04.2026 with a view to provide one more opportunity to respondent No.6 as well as respondent Nos.7 to 15, however, respondent Nos.7 to 15 have chosen not to appear till date, as such this writ petition is being heard in absence of respondent Nos.7 to 15.
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the impugned order dated 30.04.2008 passed by learned District Magistrate, Giridih in Revenue Revision Case No.2/2007 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih. The prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the Lands Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih whereby he has passed the order of cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners and various other raiyats whose land had been mutated long back in different mutation cases after their purchase made from the petitioners.
Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner’s father namely Hazi Md. Habib Ansari has purchased an area admeasuring 17.26 acres of land comprised within different plots under Khata No.11, Thana No.94 of village – Kusamraja, PS- Bagodar and District – Giridih by registered sale deeds dated 20.11.1970 by the private respondent No.6. He further submits that the said land has been mutated in respect of the aforesaid lands long back as well as in the year 1972 in Mutation Case No.4/1972-73 and since then the petitioners are in peaceful possession of the land and have been paying rent against the grant of rent receipt till the year 2004.
Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that in Mutation Case No.4/1972-73 respondent No.6 appeared and filed his objection stating inter alia that the total consideration money had not been paid, however, respondent No.6 took no interest in the case and after following due procedure in accordance with law and after obtaining report regarding possession of the aforesaid lands, by terms of order dated 22.06.1973 an order was passed by the Circle Officer, Bagodar in Rent Assessment Case No.4/1972-73 for opening Jamabandi in the name of the father of the petitioner namely Hazi Md. Habib Ansari and the said order has been brought on record in supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner No.2 dated 21.10.2008. He then submits that the petitioner by terms of three registered sale deeds dated 12.03.1977 sold and transferred 4 Annas share out of the aforesaid purchased property in favour of the petitioner and 4 Annas share in favour of the petitioner’s wife and 8 Annas share in favour of the children of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was regularly paying the rent with respect to the lands purchased by him up to the year 2004 contained in Annexure-1. He next submits that the petitioner sold different portions of the aforesaid lands in favour of 21 different purchasers, who after their respective purchase, came in possession of the lands and were duly mutated with respect to the lands purchased by them in different mutation cases. He also submits that in the year 1980, a proceeding was initiated under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. which was decided in favour of the petitioner’s father and in terms of order dated 15.04.2008. He next submits that in the year 1981 a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. was further initiated in respect of the lands as aforesaid, however, the same was also decided in favour of the petitioner by terms of order dated 23.11.1984 and a revision was also filed against the aforesaid order dated 23.11.1984 which was also dismissed. He next submits that in the year 2005 the private respondent No.6 herein filed an application for cancellation of Jamabandi in respect of the aforesaid lands and for opening a jamabandi in respect of the aforesaid lands and for opening a demand in his favour and the same was registered as Mutation Case No.232/2005-06 and Mutation Case No.144/2006-07 in the Court of learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih. He next submits that in the said mutation case the petitioner has not received any notice, however, as a false notice was shown to be served upon the petitioner and it was observed that the petitioner has not appeared in the said proceeding and Land Reform Deputy Collector passed the order saying that the petitioner was not interested in the said case and directed to cancel the jamabandi of the petitioner by order dated 18.09.2006 and for opening a demand with respect to the aforesaid lands in favour of the private respondent No.6 and the file was forwarded to the Circle Officer, Bagodar and the said order is contained in Annexure-2 of the writ petition.
Mr. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that while passing the said ex-parte order, no inspection report regarding physical possession of the lands was directed to be made by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih. He further submits that in the said order it has been also observed that since consideration amount was not fully paid and in view of that cancellation has been made. Mr. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that once the registered sale deed is executed it is valid and the part payment cannot be a consideration of cancellation of jamabandi and to buttress this argument he relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 573 and he refers to paragraph Nos.36 and 43 which are as under :-
36.The definition indicates that in order to constitute a sale, there must be a transfer of ownership from one person to another, i.e., transfer of all rights and interests in the properties which are possessed by that person are transferred by him to another person. The transferor cannot retain any part of his interest or right in that property or else it would not be a sale. The definition further says that the transfer of ownership has to be for a "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised". Price thus constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction of sale. The words "price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised" indicate that actual payment of whole of the price at the time of the execution of sale deed is not sine qua non to the completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid but the document is executed and thereafter registered, if the property is of the value of more than Rs. 100/-, the sale would be complete.
43.In view of the above, the High Court was wholly in error in coming to the conclusion that there was no sale as only a sum of Rs. 500 was paid to defendant No. 2 and the balance amount of Rs. 4,500 was not paid. Since the title in the property had already passed, even if the balance amount of sale price was not paid, the sale would not become invalid. The property sold would stand transferred to the buyer subject to the statutory charge for the unpaid part of the sale price.
On the same line, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further relied in the case of Dahiben versus Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) Dead through legal representatives and Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 366 and he refers to paragraph Nos.29.8 and 29.9 which are as under:-
29.8.In Vidyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr.14 this Court held that the words “price paid or promised or part paid and part promised” indicates that actual payment of the whole of the price at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed is not a sine qua non for completion of the sale. Even if the whole of the price is not paid, but the document is executed, and thereafter registered, the sale would be complete, and the title would pass on to the transferee under the transaction. The non-payment of a part of the sale price would not affect the validity of the sale. Once the title in the property has already passed, even if the balance sale consideration is not paid, the sale could not be invalidated on this ground. In order to constitute a “sale” the parties must intend to transfer the ownership of the property, on the agreement to pay the price either in praesenti, or in future. The intention is to be gathered from the recitals of the sale deed, the conduct of the parties, and the evidence on record.
29.9.In view of the law laid down by this Court, even if the averments of the Plaintiffs are taken to be true, that the entire sale consideration had not in fact been paid, it could not be a ground for cancellation of the Sale Deed. The Plaintiffs may have other remedies in law for recovery of the balance consideration, but could not be granted the relief of cancellation of the registered Sale Deed. We find that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is vexatious, meritless, and does not disclose a right to sue. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a).
Relying on the above judgments, Mr. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that once sale proceeds have been taken in light of Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act sale is complete and that has been held in above two judgments by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Mr. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that so far Mutation Case No.4/1972-73 by which the jamabandi was created in favour of the petitioners in the said case inspection was made by Halka Karamchari and report and other reports have been considered and thereafter the said mutation order has been passed. He next submits that the procedure has not been followed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih in passing of the said order. He next submits that the petitioner transferred different portions of land in favour of 21 different persons, who after their respective purchase came in possession and were also mutated the land and had been regularly paying rent against the grant of rent receipts in different mutation cases and in view of the aforesaid facts, the Circle Officer, Bagodar forwarded the file to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih by terms of his order dated 14.12.2006 contained in Annexure-3.
By way of referring the said order of Circle Officer, contained in Annexure-3, Mr. A. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Circle Officer has informed the Land Reforms Deputy Collector saying that long jamabandi is coming in favour of other raiyats since long back and for cancellation of jamabandi of the present petitioners others jamabandi are also required to be cancelled first, thereafter, it can only be done. He next submits that thereafter father of the respondent No.6 moved before the SDO in LR Case No.232 of 2005-06 and he has been pleased to affirm the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector. He next submits that thereafter the petitioner has moved before the Deputy Commissioner against the order dated 30.04.2008 in Revision Case No.2/2007 and by order dated 30.04.2008 without recording any reason District Magistrate has also been pleased to confirm the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih and dismissed the revision petition.
Mr. Allam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that once the long running jamabandi is there in a routine way, it cannot be cancelled that is well settled principle of law. He next submits that the petitioners are still in possession of the said land and for the dispute in question respondent No.6 has already instituted Original Title Suit No.216 of 2008 which is still pending. He next submits that it has been held in several cases that even if the State Government is claiming ownership upon the property and there is long running jamabandi the State is also required to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction to prove the same for cancellation of jamabandi. He next submits that since in the writ petition the impugned orders have been stayed by this Court the cancellation has not been done of jamabandi of the petitioners and further the petitioners are still in possession. On these grounds, he submits that the writ petition may kindly be allowed.
Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioners have not paid the entire consideration amount and that has prevailed upon the authorities, namely Land Reforms Deputy Collector to pass the said order and in view of that there is no illegality in the said order. He further submits that it has also come in the order of learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector that original documents have already burnt. He then submits that the suit is pending and in view of that the jamabandi can be decided in light of outcome of the decree of the suit and in the said suit all the subsequent purchasers have also been made party as defendants. On these grounds, he submits that writ petition may kindly be dismissed.
In view of above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the relevant documents as well as different orders passed by revenue authorities, it transpires that the father of the petitioners has purchased the land in the year 1970 and thereafter for mutation Mutation Case No.4/1972-73 has been initiated in which inspection was made and after perusing Halka Karamchari report and Circle Inspector Report and further considering all the objections the mutation was done in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.6 herein has moved before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih in Mutation Case No.232/2005-06 and Mutation Case No.144/2006-07 which was decided in absence of the petitioner and the direction has been issued to cancel the jamabandi of the petitioners and issue rent receipt in favour of respondent No.6. The said order was passed ex-parte against the petitioners and it was on the ground that full consideration amount was not paid, however, that cannot be a ground for cancellation of long running jamabandi and that is well settled in light of two judgments relied by learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners. This aspect of the matter has been recently further considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raziya Begum & Ors. versus Nafisa Begum Abdul Hamid & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 814 wherein at paragraph No.14 it has been held as under :-
14.Even if we understand the High Court having not entered into a reappreciation of facts, it is clear that the conclusion on the available facts was wrong. The sale deed executed with full knowledge of the part consideration alone having been passed, cannot be rendered void or inoperative merely because the balance consideration promised to be paid, which promise was incorporated in the sale deed, had not been complied with. The right of the plaintiffs was to file for recovery of balance sale consideration and not to seek declaration that the sale deeds were null and void; which they are not.
Thus, in view of above judgments, the cancellation on the said ground is not in accordance with law and further the Circle Officer by his order dated 14.01.2006 communicated to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector that other raiyats jamabandi is running since long back and unless their jamabandi are cancelled it is difficult to cancel the jamabandi of the raiyats/purchasers and in view of that he has not cancelled the jamabandi of the petitioners. Against that respondent No.6 has moved before the SDO and from the order it transpires that he was also the in-charge of the office of Land Reforms Deputy Collector and that is how he has passed the order affirming the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector and directed to comply the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Thereafter, petitioner moved before the learned Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner has been pleased to dismiss the same by order dated 30.04.2008 and it is further an admitted position that with respect to the land in question Title Suit No.216 of 2008 is still pending in which the petitioner and other purchasers have been made defendants. It is an admitted position that jamabandi of the petitioner is created in the year 1972-73 wherein the above development by way of passing different order, as noted here-in-above, have taken later on that is in the year 2005-06 i.e. after 22 to 25 years.
It is well settled that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled in such a way and the correct course of action is to institute a suit in a competent court of civil jurisdiction and this principle is well settled and suffice is to refer the case of State of Bihar and others vs. Labendra Chand Bothra reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 21 (SC).
There is no doubt that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a routine way. The Court is in agreement that if a valid jamabandi is created which cannot be cancelled by the Revenue Authority in a routine way, however, at the same time if it has been brought to the knowledge of the authority that it has been fraudulently done and it is proved the matter would be otherwise and the authority concerned can pass the appropriate order.
In the case of Gulabasi Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2003 (3) JLJR 793 wherein at paragraph 6 it has been held as under :-
“6.Admittedly the land was recorded in the survey record of right as Gair Mazarua Malik in the name of the ex-landlord who settle the land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner Ram Kewal Sahu. The ex-landlord submitted his return showing Ram Kewal Sahu as settlee and jamabandi was opened in his name. The genuineness of the record of right, the settlement made in favour of Ram Kewal Sahu and the jamabandi opened in his name was ever challenged by the State of Bihar rather in all the proceedings initiated at the instance of Baij Nath Prasad and respondent no.7 the authorities of the State decided all those proceedings in favour of the petitioner. It is well settled that once jamabandi opened in favour of a person and that continued for a number of years, it can be cancelled only by initiating a proceeding by the Collector under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Reference may be made to a division bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Harihar Singh V. Additional Collector, 1978 BBCJ 323.
Further in the case of Ramayan Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) PLJR 533, wherein at paragraph 8 it has been held as under :-
“ 8. So far the other point is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the said authority, rather a civil suit is the only remedy. On this point, a plethora of decisions are available including a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Khiru Gope and two others Versus The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Jamui and three others, reported in A.I.R. 1983 Patna 121. Learned counsel for the appellants completely failed to controvert this issue.
In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the impugned order dated 30.04.2008 passed by learned District Magistrate, Giridih in Revenue Revision Case No.2/2007 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners and confirming the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Giridih and order dated 18.09.2006 passed by the Lands Reforms Deputy Collector, Giridih are hereby set aside.
This writ petition is hereby allowed in above terms and disposed of.
Pending I.A., if any, is also disposed of.