IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6924 of 2009 VISHWAJIT KUMAR @ MOHAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 3 6.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner produces copy of counter affidavit served upon him, which is kept on the record. The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Collector, Jehanabad in Case No.8/DM-2008 by which he cancelled the Jamabandi of the petitioner being Demand No.157, Thana No.410, Khata No.110, Plot No.334 measuring an area of 0.01 decimal situated in Mauza Bhewal in the district of Jehanabad. The learned Collector has cancelled the demand on the ground that it does not contain the date and case number on basis of which it has been opened. He also observed that the petitioner did not produce any documents relating to opening of Jamabandi in his favour. The petitioner states that he had produced documents relating to opening of Jamabandi as contained in Annexures 1 to 6. The demand was opened on the basis of return filed by the Zamindar at the time of vesting of Zamindari and not pursuant to any case, as such the number of case and date of the same is not recorded. He submits that when a person in whose name Jamabandi stands,transfers land or dies, a new Jamabandi is created in favour of transferee or successor on filing of a case. It appears that Compensation Case No.18685/53-54 filed by the Ex-land lord shows Raju Singh, great grand father of the petitioner as raiyat. The bujharat proceeding also shows name of Ram Briksha Singh - 2 - KHAN as Gairmazarua Malik Ba Kabje Khas. The subsequent Khatian has also been opened in the name of Ram Briksha Singh son of Raju Singh. These documents show that the ancestors of the petitioner were not only in possession of the land in question, but they were raiyats of the Ex-land lord. Thus, in view of some of the documents which are of the earlier period even prior to vesting of Zamindari, I am of the view that the entry in the Jamabandi register cannot be faulted as it does not contain case number and date of opening of Jamabandi. The initial entry just after vesting of Zamindari on basis of returns filed by the Zamindar would not necessarily arise out of any case. It is only when there is no initial entry after vesting of Zamindari that cases are filed under section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 for opening of Jamabandi. Further any subsequent entry substituting the first Jamabandi would arise pursuant to filing of a case only. In these circumstances the entry of case and date of recording in Jamabandi register becomes very relevant. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Collector, Jehanabad in Case No.8/DM-2008 is set aside. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. (S.P.Singh,J)