PATNA, India, April 23 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on March 23:

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for following reliefs:-

"i. The order dated 1.3.2021 passed by the Additional Collector Khagaria in Jamabandi Raddi Karan Case No. 24 of 2020 may kindly be set aside.

ii. It may kindly be held as the settlement by Ex- Land Lord was made much before 1.1.1946 and in return the name of the vendor of the petitioner's father was mentioned and the vendor of the petitioner's father paid rent and obtained rent receipt from Ex-Land Lord till abolition of Zamindari and thereafter to the state and father of the petitioner/petitioners has been paying rent up to date to the State after the date of purchase.

iii. It may kindly be also held that under the facts and circumstances stated above the State Officials have got no reason to start Jamabandi Cancellation Case. iv. The present Jamabandi raddikaran case has been made on the proposal of Anchaladhikari who has not got such power V. Law is well settled that in a case where Raiyat is found in possession for long then Jamabandi cancellation proceeding U/s 4 (h) is without jurisdiction. vi. Award amount may kindly paid to the petitioner. vii. Any other relief may also be given to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court finds fit and reasonable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the fact that by the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria, his long-standing Jamabandi has been cancelled. It has been submitted that the father of the petitioner had purchased the land through registered sale in 1966 from the duly settled Raiyat by ex-landlord much before 01.01.1946 and since then, father of the petitioner is in continuous possession over the said land and after his death the petitioner has been coming in possession of the same till date. It has further been submitted that prior to abolition of zamindari, rent was being paid to the ex-landlord and upon abolition the rent was being paid to the State of Bihar till date and there had been no claim from any corner.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said proposal by the local Circle Officer is against the instructions given by the Governor of Bihar. He further submits that as the ex-landlord made settlement to a tenant and the tenant came in possession of the same, the land become raiyati land of the tenant and the State cannot claim over such land. It has been asserted that in the present case, after settlement, the tenant/vendor sold the land to the father of the petitioner who is in possession till date. The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to Annexure-3, has claimed that, considering the genuine and bona fide claim of the petitioner, the state authority was pleased to call upon the petitioner with relevant documents for compensation, as the land was being acquired for an approach road.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTMyOTgjMjAyMSMxI04=-zYmgJrKlLP8=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.