Revenue Authorities Cannot Cancel Long-Running Jamabandi, Only Competent Civil Court Can Decide: Jharkhand High Court

"There is no provision under the Bihar Tenants' Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 to cancel Jamabandi running in favour of a raiyat and in absence of any provision, such Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by any authority of the State." Jharkhand High Court, in a significant ruling, held that revenue authorities possess no statutory power to cancel a long-running Jamabandi, and such disputes can only be resolved by a competent civil court.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that once a Jamabandi is opened in favour of a recorded raiyat, revenue officials are strictly bound to accept rent and issue receipts, regardless of rival title claims raised by third parties.

The background of the case revolves around a property dispute where the original respondent possessed a Jamabandi recorded in his name since 1964-65. The appellants, claiming adverse title through their ancestors and possession over the same land, objected to the issuance of rent receipts in favour of the respondent. The Member, Board of Revenue, directed the local revenue authorities to issue the rent receipts based on the existing Jamabandi. Aggrieved by this, the appellants filed a writ petition, which was subsequently dismissed by a Single Judge, leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal.

The primary question before the court was whether revenue authorities have the jurisdiction to cancel a long-standing Jamabandi under the Bihar Tenants' Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. The court was also called upon to determine whether third parties asserting adverse title are entitled to an opportunity of hearing before rent receipts are issued to the recorded Jamabandi holder.

Revenue Authorities Duty Bound To Issue Rent Receipts

The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Board of Revenue's direction to issue rent receipts to the original respondent. The court underscored that the existence of a Jamabandi creates a statutory obligation on revenue officials. The bench firmly noted that authorities cannot unilaterally freeze the issuance of rent receipts on the mere pretext of a third-party objection.

Highlighting this legal mandate, the court observed, "once the Jamabandi of any land is opened in favour of any ‘raiyat’, the revenue authorities are duty bound to accept the rent of that land and to issue rent receipts. They cannot stop issuing rent receipt without any order of a competent Court of law cancelling the Jamabandi."

No Opportunity Of Hearing For Third Parties

Addressing the appellants' grievance that they were not heard before the rent receipts were issued, the court clarified that administrative actions regarding rent collection do not require a wider public hearing. The bench ruled that third parties with adverse claims cannot hijack administrative revenue processes.

The court emphatically stated, "we are of the considered view that no such opportunity is required to be granted to any third person before issuing rent receipt in favour of a person in whose name Jamabandi of the land is running."

Statutory Bar On Cancelling Long-Running Jamabandi

Delving into the statutory framework, the court examined the provisions of the Bihar Tenants' Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. Relying on the coordinate bench decision in State of Jharkhand v. Izhar Hussain, the court noted the absolute absence of any provision empowering State revenue authorities to annul a Jamabandi once created.

The bench explicitly warned against executive overreach in revenue matters, noting, "If such action is taken by the revenue authorities in absence of any provision in the statute, the same will be nullity in the eye of law being without jurisdiction. It is well settled that a long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, except by filing a suit in the competent Court of civil jurisdiction."

Rival Title Claims Beyond Revenue Jurisdiction

The court further relied upon Mahabir Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand to establish that mutation proceedings are strictly fiscal in nature and cannot determine complex questions of title, right, or interest. The bench observed that a party cannot claim mutation based on an interest totally adverse to the person whose name already exists in the revenue records.

Refusing to adjudicate the appellants' title claims in a writ jurisdiction, the court observed, "the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the dispute with respect to the right, title and interest of the parties over the said land. They have also no jurisdiction to cancel the long running Jamabandi of the said land already opened in the name of the original respondent No.5."

"In a mutation proceeding, neither any declaration can be made with respect to the right, title and interest of any party nor any decree/order of possession can be passed so as to give possession to one party by evicting the other party."

Dismissing the appeal for lacking merit, the High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision refusing to interfere with the revenue authorities' actions. The court, however, granted the appellants the liberty to pursue alternative remedies permissible under the law, effectively pointing them toward a competent civil court to resolve their title dispute.

Date of Decision: 14 July 2026