IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12227 of 2010 NAGENDER PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE YAMUNA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DAMARICHAK, P.S. DHANARUA, P.O. MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT LAND REFORMS COLLECTOR, MASAURHI, PATNA. 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DHANARUA, P.S. DHANARUA, DISTRICT PATNA. 4. DAMODAR PANDEY, SON OF LATE SHIV LAKHAN PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BERNI, P.S. DHANARUA, P.O. BERNI, DISTRICT PATNA. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS **************** 5 25.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in Annexure-3, passed by the Circle Officer, Dhanarua and the order dated 10.6.2009, passed by the D.C.L.R., Masaurhi (Patna). The case of the petitioner’s is that his name finds place in the Khatiyan where he is shown to be the Raiyat of the land and where his ancestor Narsingh Das is shown in the Raiyat column, whereas Dwarka Pandey has been shown as the Khebatdaar (ex- intermediary). The respondent is purchaser from the ex-intermediary by a registered sale deed of the year 1947 which is annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 2 Both the orders impugned have not considered the fact that the petitioner’s name is recorded in the cadastral survey and the revisional survey as well as in the contents of the registered deed of the year 1947. It may be noted that the impugned order by the Circle Officer has been passed on the ground that there was a verification made of the lands in question, wherein it was found by the Halka Karamchari that the respondent is in possession of the land. The verification report has not been produced by the petitioner or the respondent. In fact, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the respondent could not get copy of the said report. On the basis of the report, which apparently appears to be an ex-parte report, prepared in the absence of the petitioner and the respondent, can not form the basis of cancelling the Jamabandi. It may be noted that the Circle Officer and the D.C.L.R. have stated that there is no case number to indicate the opening of the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. Nevertheless, it cannot be concluded on the 3 basis of this fact that the Jamabandi was not genuine or was wrongly created in view of the fact that at the time of vesting of land in the State of Bihar, the records were prepared as and when the returns were filed by ex-landlord or, on the receipt of reports and on the basis of the Khatiyans available for the lands in question. On the findings of an ex-parte enquiry, the orders impugned have been passed, without considering the relevant material. I, therefore, remand the matter to the Circle Officer, Dhanarua to reconsider the case of the petitioner, on receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to appear before the Circle Officer, Dhanarua within a period of eight weeks on receipt of a copy of this order. The spot verification report on the land should be made in presence of both the parties and be counter signed by them. Apart from which, the authorities concerned are directed to pursue the relevant documents before passing any order. In the result, the order dated 18.2.2009 and order dated 5.3.2010 are 4 hereby quashed. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)