IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3119 of 2004 (1) Pramod Singh, son of Late Girish Singh, (2) Abhay Singh, (3) (A) Parimal Singh, (4) (B) Sudhir Singh, (5) © Subhash Singh, all sons of Jado Singh, all of village Charaiya, PS Sono, Dist. Jamui – Petitioners. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue Department, Bihar, Patna. (2) The Collector, Jamui. (3) The D.C.L.R. Jamui. (4) The Anchal Adhikari, Sono Anchal, Dist. Jamui. (5) Lalu Yadav, (6) Lakhan Yadav, (7) Huro Yadav, (8) Sukhdeo Yadav, all sons of Late Musho Gope @ Musha Yadav, (9) Smt. Pato Devi, (10) Smt. Pabia Devi, both daughters of Mitan Gope, all of village Charaiya, PS Sono, Dist. Jamui. (11) Chato Singh, son of Yamuna Singh, both of Charaiya, PS Sono, Dist. Jamui. (12) Rama Nand Singh, son of Bhato Singh, resident of Maheshwari, PS Sono, Dist. Jamui – Respondents. 7 20.8.2010 I.A. No. 5074 of 2007: This interlocutory application has been filed for substituting the heirs of petitioner no.3 who died during the pendency of the writ petition. The heirs are mentioned at paragraph 2 of the application. The substituted heirs have appeared by filing a Vakalatnama. Office is directed to expunge the name of petitioner no. 3 and add the names of substituted heirs. The petitioners have moved this court against the order, dated 30.1.2004 by which the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has cancelled their Jamabandi. The case of the petitioners 2 is that lands of Maheshwari of Khata no. 24, plot nos. 106, 73, 87, 90, 94, 174, 156, 159, 178, 197, 203, 346, 359, 408, 414, 421 and 485 respectively were recorded in the name of Gondo Gope in the cadastral survey of 1907. The petitioners are said to have purchased the plots of land measuring 6.76 acres on 26.5.1927. After the purchase, the petitioners’ names were recorded, first in the revenue records of the Zamindar Sarista, and after the vesting of the estate, during Bhujarath which took place in Munger district, Jamabandi was opened in the name of the petitioners. The petitioners subsequently sold some of the plots to one Kosmi Devi and part of the plots to the respondent. During the pendency of the case before the D.C.L.R., the Circle Officer is said to have made an inspection and reported that he came to know that some of the lands were in possession of the respondents whereas some of the lands were in possession of Kosmi Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents could not have moved after more than hundred years to get their names recorded or cancel the Jamabandi of the petitioners. The case of the respondents, on the other hand, is that they are the heirs of Gondo Gope and are in possession of the lands in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent have never got their names mutated in the revenue records and have not paid rent to the State of Bihar for the past 3 hundred years and now they have come forward in 2003 to file an application for cancellation of petitioners’ Jamabandi. It is also submitted that the Circle Officer without noticing the petitioners has conducted an enquiry. The enquiry is vague and cannot be relied upon, as it does not disclose the source through which the Circle officer learnt that respondents were in possession of the lands. Lastly it is submitted that the D.C.L.R. has no authority to cancel the Jamabandi. It is the Circle officer who can examine the record and after examination, recommend for cancellation of the Jamabandi. The submission on behalf of the petitioners with respect to inspection report are justified and on a perusal of the record it appears that it was done behind the petitioners’ back and, therefore, cannot be relied upon. As far as cancellation of Jamabandi is concerned, this aspect has to be examined and considered in the light of the entire documents of the petitioners by the Circle Officer. In no circumstances the Jamabandi can directly be cancelled by the D.C.L.R. Accordingly I quash the order, dated 30.1.2004 passed by the D.C.L.R. in Correction Case No. 12/2003. This writ petition is allowed. The aggrieved party may seek remedy available under the law, if so advised. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)