@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N.N. Tiwari, J.@mdashIn this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Additional Collector, Bokaro in Misc. Appeal No. 3/99 whereby the Additional Collector has passed the order cancelling the Jamabandi earlier created in favour of the petitioner''s ancestors and that too without giving him any opportunity of hearing.
2. The petitioner claims to be the descendant of the ex-landlord and having been found in physical possession M-Form was issued in respect of the land in question and subsequently the petitioner''s name was entered in the revenue register as far back as in the year 1979. The rent was assessed and being realized since 1952 and the petitioner has been granted rent receipts continuously. He has been in physical possession of the same. According to the petitioner, he has got right, title and interest over the land in question. The petitioner has also transferred a portion of the said land and the transferees have been in possession of the portion transferred to them. The ancestors of Suraj Manjhi (respondent No. 7) had also got the settlement from him. The respondent No. 7 subsequently filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro complaining some irregularity regarding the entries in respect of the said land. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector directed the Circle Officer to inquire into the matter. The CO. submitted a report on 20.5.1999 wherein he observed that there was no irregularity in transfer of the said land. The LRDC, thereafter, rejected the application of the respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 thereafter filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bokaro which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 3/99. In the said appeal the petitioner was not made a party, no notice was served on him and the-said appeal was decided behind his back. The Additional Collector by his order dated 30.9.2002 directed to cancel the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner and to open Jamabandi in favour of the respondent No. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Jamabandi once created in his favour by a competent authority cannot be cancelled by the Additional Collector and that too without giving him any opportunity of hearing.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents, but in their counter affidavit nothing has been brought on record to show as to under what authority or provision of law the Additional Collector has exercised his power to cancel the petitioner''s long running Jamabandi. It has been only stated that as the same land was recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas in the record of right and the same vested in State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and Jamabandi opened in favour of the petitioner in respect of Gair Mazarua land was illegal and without jurisdiction and the Additional Collector has power to cancel such Jamabandi.
4. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the Additional Collector has got no jurisdiction to cancel the long running Jamabandi of the petitioner and as such the Impugned order is wholly arbitrary and illegal. learned Counsel further submitted that the said Jamabandi was opened after holding an enquiry by the competent Revenue Officer and the same was standing for decades. There was no appeal/revision against the order opening Jamabandi. There is no allegation of any fraud in obtaining the order. learned Counsel submitted that the Additional Collector has got no jurisdiction to pass an order of cancellation of the said Jamabandi and reopen the issue once decided and became final.
5. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted that since the said land was recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas in the record of right and all such lands were vested in the State of Bihar, the Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioner after the date of vesting was wrong and illegal and as such the same was liable to be cancelled. The Additional Collector has thus rightly exercised his power and has cancelled the same. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 has also supported the said contention of the State and submitted that there was irregularity in opening the Jamabandi in the name of the petitioner and the same can be inquired into by the Additional Collector. He submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order of the Additional Collector.
6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, 1 find that it is an admitted case that the petitioner is one of the descendants of the ex-landlord and he had also got the said land from his father, who was himself a descendant of the ex-landlord. In the record of right, the said land was recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas of the ex-landlord. After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the petitioner''s ancestors were found in Khas possession of the said land and after due enquiry M-Form was prepared in their name and rent in respect of the said land was assessed in their name. The petitioner since thereafter has been paying rent and getting rent receipts for several decades. The respondents have not produced any authority or provision of law under which the Jamabandi, which had been created decades ago by the competent authority can be cancelled, though the State had been accepting rent and granting rent receipts, and accepting the petitioner as tenant even after the vesting of estate by operation of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In my view, Jamabandi once created/opened by the competent authority in favour of a person, who has been accepted as a tenant under the State by accepting rent for several decades, creates a valuable legal right in his favour and that valuable right cannot be taken away except through the procedure established by law. Once a tenancy right is created in respect of any land, the same has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the tenancy laws applicable in the area or to the person concerned. The concerned area is governed by the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Under the provisions of Sections 17 & 19 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, an occupancy right is acquired by a person remaining in possession of the land for more than 12 years. An occupancy raiyat cannot be ejected from his holding except in the manner as provided u/s 22 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The Additional Collector has no jurisdiction to determine the tenancy right otherwise than provided under law and cancel his Jamabandi which may lead to his ejectment from his holding. The Additional Collector has thus acted arbitrarily and without any authority of law in passing the order of cancellation of petitioner''s Jamabandi. The impugned order contained in Annexure-4 is, thus, wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. The writ application is allowed. There is, however, no order as to costs.
