IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.6110 OF 2003 VINDHYACHAL RAI SON OF LATE BABU RAJA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE D. K. SHIKARPUR, POLICE STAION SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (REVENUE), WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, GAUNAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH WITH CWJC NO. 5492 OF 2003 VINAY VERMA, SON OF LATE SINGHESWAR PRASAD VERMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE D. K. SHIKARPUR, POLICE STAION SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (REVENUE), WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, GAUNAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH WITH CWJC NO. 5709 OF 2003 VINAY VARMA, SON OF LATE SINGHESHWAR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE D. K. SHIKARPUR, POLICE STAION SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (REVENUE), WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, GAUNAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH WITH CWJC NO. 694 OF 2004 BHUNESHWAR TIWARY, SON OF SHRI MUNNY TIWARY, RESIDENT OF MOUZA BIKHNA THORI, ANCHAL GAUNAHA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (REVENUE), WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, GAUNAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH ********** 4 19/11/2010 All these four writ applications have been filed against the order of the Additional Collector, West 2 Champaran, Bettiah passed in Case No. 09 of 2000- 01/22 of 2001-02, 09 of 2000-01/17 of 2001-02, 09 of 2000-01/19 of 2001-02 and 09 of 2000-01/24 of 2001- 02 respectively. By the impugned orders, the Additional Collector has cancelled the jamabandi of the petitioners on an application being filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. In a similar matter, orders passed in Case No. 09 of 2000-01/26 of 2001-02 were considered by this Court in CWJC No. 4839 of 2004. The grounds for cancellation are two folds. Firstly, it is stated that the jamabandi in the name of the petitioners have been obtained on wrong premises. The second reason, is the more important reason, for cancellation of the jamabandi, which is that the lands in question had been declared to be forest lands and as such cannot be the subject matter of settlement to any private persons. The short facts of CWJC No. 6110 of 2003 are that the ex-landlord Ram Nagar Raj has settled lands in the names of Dhananjay Prasad. Dhananjay Prasad is said to have sold the lands in question to Vindhyachal Rai by sale deed dated 20.08.1970. The lands were mutated in the names of Vindhyachal Rai and he has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. There was a provisional gazette notification declaring the lands to be 3 forest lands. An objection was filed on behalf of the petitioners and thereafter, a gazette notification was issued on 16.11.1961 (Annexure-2), denotifying the lands and releasing the lands from the forest area. Similar are the facts of CWJC No. 694 of 2004, only the name of the petitioner is different and the dates are also somewhat different. The order of the Additional Collector and the reasonings are the same in the impugned orders. Both these orders would be covered by the decision rendered in CWJC No. 4839 of 2004. Accordingly, the Additional Collector is required to consider the order and judgment dated 08.05.2006 passed by this Court which has remained unchallenged and pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Regarding CWJC Nos. 5709 and 5492 of 2003, the impugned orders dated 14.02.2003 is similar. The facts are also similar in both the cases. The case of the petitioners is that the ex- landlord Ram Nagar Raj settled the lands in favour of Murli Monohar Prasad. The ex-landlord thereafter filed returns in the name of the settlees and jamabandi no. 5 was created in the name of Murli Monohar Prasad. Murli 4 Manohar Prasad had two sons, Kanak Narayan Sinha and Shanti Narayan Sinha. Kanak Narayan Sinha came into the possession over 75 acres of land and two jamabandies were created from Jamabandi No. 5, which are Jamabandi No. 19 and 17. The legal heirs of Kanak Narayan Sinha executed a power of attorney on 14.11.2000 with respect to touzi no. 729. Subsequently, on an application being filed on behalf of the State, the jamabandi of the petitioners were cancelled. The ground for cancellation is that the lands in question had been notified to be forest area. Counsel for the petitioners has relied on Annexure-2 to show this Court that the lands in question were subsequently denotified and, therefore, the cancellation of the jamabandi on the ground that the lands in question are forest lands is unwarranted. It is further submitted that a jamabandi cannot be cancelled in this manner specially when it relates to settlement made prior to the cut off date as mentioned under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. In fact, it is submitted that no proceedings have been initiated against the settlees or the persons who have, by way of inheritance, are in possession of the lands settled in favour of Murli Manohar Prasad. Counter affidavit has been filed in CWJC No. 5 5492 of 2003 on behalf of the State, trying to justify the orders passed by the Additional Collector. It is said that Jamabandi No. 17 was created by bifurcation of Jamabandi No. 5, which covered 200 acres of land. It is said that the rent was paid for a period of 12 yeas on 05.07.1996 and the jamabandi register II indicates that the lands are situated in Phik Hanthori village. However, it is contended on behalf of the State that the lands are actually situated in village Kataha, which are forest lands. A stand has been taken that the said order has been passed in terms of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godda Barman Triamulpad vs. Union of India (Case No. 202 of 1995). A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that the petitioners had applied for mining lease for manual picking of stone pebbles on 30 acres of land, the Collector, West Champaran had granted them lease for a period of ten years. The petitioners continued the mining activities until cancellation of the jamabandi by the impugned orders. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing I. A. No. 1036 of 2007 in Public Interest Litigation W. P. (C) No. 202 of 1995 with a prayer to allow him to continue his mining activities. In this context, the petitioner refers to a letter written by the Commissioner 6 to the Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar stating that by a denotification, the land in question has been found to be outside the forest area. The letter of the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur no. 31/C dated 08.02.2008 is annexed as Annexure-9 to the Supplementary affidavit. The petitioner also relies on the information derived from the Circle Officer, Gaunaha under the Right to Information Act wherein it has been mentioned that the lands related to village Kataha, thana no. 178, jamabandi no. 17, 18 and 19 are outside the forest area. All these aspects of the matter including the order and judgment of this Court passed in CWJC No. 4839 of 2004 ought to be examined by the Additional Collector/the Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah. The petitioners are thus directed to file application before the aforesaid authority within a period of eight weeks of receipt of a copy of this order, which should be disposed of within six months thereafter. If the Additional Collector/the Collector comes to the conclusion that the lands in question do not fall within the forest areas, then there is no question of cancellation of the jamabandies on the ground that the lands belong to the forest. This Court would also like to observe that cancellation of jamabandi can only take place under the 7 provision of Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 14.02.2003 passed in case no. 09 of 2000-01 is hereby quashed. All these four writ applications are thus allowed to the extent indicated aforesaid. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )