IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4178 of 2006 1. BIPIN KUMAR SINGH 2. BIKASH KUMAR SINGH, BOTH SONS OF SHRI RAGHUNATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DARIMA, POLICE STATION- KEOTI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA :---PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SADAR, DARBHANGA. 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KEOTI, DARBHANGA. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, KEOTI, DARBHANGA :---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4. 03.03.2011. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, State and the intervener. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the recommendation dated 28.02.2005 made by Circle Officer, Keoti in Encroachment Case No. 06/03-04, Annexure-1, whereunder Jamabandi No. 149 of the petitioners over Plot Nos. 1388, 1483, 804 appertaining to Khata No. 310 measuring an area of 1.92, 0.63, 1.04 decimals of land has been recommended for being cancelled ignoring the entries made in the Khatian as also the order passed by the Revenue Officer in favour of the petitioners under Section 106 of the B.T. Act. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that khatiyan/Revenue Record of the lands-in-question has been published in the name of the petitioners and the entries made in the khatiyan has presumptive value of correctness in the light of the provisions contained in Section 103B of the B.T. Act. In case the State authorities disputed the entries made in the Khatian/Revenue - 2 - Record in favour of the petitioners, they had remedy of suit, appeal, revision under Section 106, 108A and 109A of the said Act. Even now they can question such entry by filing civil suit in the court of competent civil jurisdiction but until such entry is annulled presumption of its correctness exist in the light of the provisions contained in Section 103B of the Act. It is submitted that without appreciating the aforesaid legal position the Circle Officer recommended for cancellation of the jamabandi as the pond-in-question is recorded in the sairat register of the Circle. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms has also accepted the proposal to cancel the jamabandi under his order dated 12.12.2005, Annexure-2 without appreciating the said legal position. 4. Counsel for the State and the intervener supported the recommendation of the Circle Officer and the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Darbhanga dated 12.12.2005, Annexure-2 and submitted that the jamabandi has been created without there being any reference of the order passed for creation of the jamabandi. They, however, accepted the position that receipts on the basis of the jamabandi created in favour of the petitioners has been issued until 2003-2004. 5. It is, thus, quite evident that not only the lands-in-question has been recorded in the khatiyan in the name of the petitioners and there is presumption of correctness of the entries made in the Khatian under - 3 - Section 103-B of the B.T. Act but the jamabandi of the lands-in-question has also been opened in favour of the petitioners as also receipts for the lands-in-question have also been issued in favour of the petitioners until 2003- 04. In view of the aforesaid two facts, I set aside the recommendation made by the Circle Officer, Keoti dated 28.02.2005, Annexure-1 and the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Darbhanga dated 12.12.2005, Annexure-2 with observation that if the State is aggrieved by the creation of the jamabandi of the lands-in-question in favour of the petitioners as also the entries made in the khatiyan/Revenue Records in favour of the petitioners they should be well advised to file civil suit for cancellation of the jamabandi as also for annulling the entries made in favour of the petitioners in the khatiyan with regard to the lands-in-question. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)