State Cannot Summarily Cancel Longstanding Jamabandi, Civil Suit Only Remedy: Patna High Court Flags State's 'Autocratic' Action
The Patna High Court has held that the State cannot seek to cancel a longstanding jamabandi through summary proceedings and that its only remedy is to approach a competent civil court. Warning the authorities against disregarding settled judicial precedent, the Court observed that any attempt to proceed otherwise would be treated as contemptuous.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sourendra Pandey was hearing a writ petition filed by Krishna Kumar Goenka challenging the State's decision to stop issuing rent receipts for land in respect of which rent had been accepted for nearly six decades.
The petitioner submitted that rent receipts had been issued continuously for about 60 years before they were abruptly discontinued. It was further submitted that the petitioner's two brothers had earlier approached the High Court in respect of the same land. In those proceedings, the Court had set aside a notice issued under Section 3(H) and categorically held that the State could not disturb the longstanding jamabandi through summary proceedings.
According to the petitioner, the High Court had already held that if the State disputed the petitioner's title, its only remedy was to institute a civil suit before a competent court. Despite those directions, it was submitted that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the authorities recommended cancellation of the jamabandi and the Additional Collector proceeded to initiate Cancellation Case No. 39 of 2023.
Taking note of the earlier judicial pronouncements, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the State's conduct. The Bench observed:
“Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents on record, this Court finds that this is yet another case that the State has acted in a very autocratical manner, where they have shown defiance not only to the orders of this Court but have also bypassed the various judicial pronouncements where it has been very categorically held that a longstanding jamabandi cannot be cancelled in summary proceedings and the only option the State has is to file a civil suit.”
The Court held that the authorities had acted beyond their jurisdiction by initiating cancellation proceedings despite the settled legal position. Accordingly, the Bench held that Cancellation Case No. 39 of 2023 initiated by the Additional Collector was unsustainable in law.
The Court directed the Circle Officer, Khaira, Jamui, to immediately resume issuance of rent receipts in favour of the petitioner. Reiterating the limited remedies available to the State, the Bench observed that if the authorities were still desirous of challenging the petitioner's rights, they were required to approach a competent civil court. The Court cautioned:
“If the State is adamant about taking any action against the petitioner the only remedy they have is to go before a competent Civil Court and any action taken apart from the same would be treated as contemptuous.”
The writ petition was accordingly allowed.
Case Title: Krishna Kumar Goenka v. State of Bihar & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16876 of 2022.
Appearance: Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh and Mr. Abhilasha Kumari for the Petitioner. Mr. Raj Kishore Roy and Mr. Navnit K for the Respondent.