IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13816 of 2009 1) Dilip Sah, 2) Bijay Sah, both sons of Late Ram Chandra Sah, Mohalla Bara Bazar, Ward No.11, PS and district Madhubani – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Dist. Magistrate, Madhubani. 2) The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 3) The Dist. Magistrate cum Collector, Madhubani. 4) The Subdivisional Officer Sadar, Madhubani. 5) The Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Madhubani. 6) The Circle Officer, Rahika, Madhubani – Respondents. 3 29.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order contained in Annexure 1 by which the petitioners have been asked to remove the encroachment from Khata No. 312, Khesra No. 89, Mauza Chakdai (Suratganj) vide memo no.166, dated 10.10.2009. The facts of the case are that a proceeding was instituted against the vendor of the petitioners, namely, Laxman Sahni and his brothers as far as back in 1978-79. This proceeding came to be challenged by the vendor of the petitioners in CWJC No. 4789/1982. This court while discussing the issues found that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms wrongly issued notice to the petitioners under section 4G of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and the order contained in Annexure 2 cancelling the Jamabandi with regard to 3 bighas 8 kathas and 7 dhurs of land described above was also without any legal basis. Ultimately the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order for removing the encroachment while doing so the court observed that it would be proper for the authorities to initiate appropriate proceeding in accordance with law under sections 4G 2 and 4H of the Act. In the mean time the petitioners purchased the land in dispute from Laxman Sahni. The vendor of the petitioners moved this court making a prayer that the Deputy Registrar be directed to register the four sale deeds presented in 1979. This court directed that the Deputy Registrar should register the sale deed and while doing so also ordered a cost of Rs. 500/- which the State may realize from the concerned Deputy Registrar, Madhubani who had refused to register the deed in question. Subsequent to the registration of the sale deed a notice was issued to the petitioners under section 4H of the Act which they challenged at various levels and finally before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by order, dated 29.12.1999 (Annexure 3) came to the conclusion that no grounds were made out for initiating a proceeding under section 4H of the Act. In this background the court will now examine Annexure 6, which is the order of the Additional Collector, Madhubani, directing the petitioners to remove the encroachment from Khesra no. 312, plot no.89. The order, dated 2.7.2009 indicates that there has been requisition for initiating a proceeding under section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act with respect to the petitioners’ plot of land and for cancellation of the Jamabandi nos. 615, 551, 552, 553, 498 and 188. The statements in the order contained in Annexure 6 reveal that in fact no proceeding was ever initiated and the Collector has taken a decision Bala Bala to cancel the Jamabandi without any notice or show cause. The 3 procedure adopted by the Collector, Madhubani is unknown to law. Without examining the order of this court passed in CWJC No. 4789/1982 and the order of the Commissioner contained in annexure 3 by which a proceeding under section 4H was found to be unwarranted. The Collector has passed this order which is most unbecoming of him. Not only that, on the basis of the said cancellation of Jamabandi, the petitioners have been asked to remove the encroachment. Such the order is not sustainable in law. This court also finds that there is hardly any justification for initiating or directing cancellation of Jamabandi in view of the facts of this case. I, therefore, quash the order contained in Annexure 6 passed in Case No. 2/2009-10 and Annexure 1, dated 9.10.2009 issued by the Circle Officer, Rahika which is the notice for removal of encroachment. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)