Introduction:
In Kishori Sah and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (L.P.A. (Filing) No. 3006 of 2026), the Jharkhand High Court reaffirmed an important principle governing land revenue administration by holding that a long-standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled by revenue authorities in the absence of any statutory power and can only be set aside by a competent civil court. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that where a jamabandi has been validly opened and continues to remain in the name of a raiyat, the revenue authorities are legally bound to accept rent and issue rent receipts until the entry is annulled by a court of competent jurisdiction. The judgment highlights the distinction between the limited administrative functions of revenue authorities and the adjudicatory powers of civil courts in deciding disputed questions of title.
The litigation arose out of a dispute concerning approximately 24.79 acres of land situated at Village Kabilasi in Hazaribagh district. The appellants asserted that the land had been settled in favour of their ancestors several decades earlier and that they had remained in peaceful possession throughout. According to them, the land had been duly mutated in their ancestors’ names, and the revenue authorities had regularly accepted rent and issued rent receipts. Their grievance emerged when the original respondent approached the Board of Revenue in 2015 claiming rights over the same property. Acting on directions issued by the Board of Revenue, the Circle Officer directed issuance of rent receipts in favour of the respondent.
The appellants challenged this action by contending that the order had been passed without issuing notice to them and in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. They further alleged that the respondent had relied upon forged and fabricated documents to establish his claim. Their writ petition, however, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge, leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
The appeal required the High Court to determine whether the revenue authorities possessed any statutory authority to cancel or disregard an existing jamabandi and whether issuance of rent receipts pursuant to an already existing jamabandi required prior notice to rival claimants.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellants argued that their family had been in settled possession of the disputed land for several decades pursuant to a lawful settlement made in favour of their ancestors. They submitted that the property had been mutated in their favour long ago and that rent had consistently been accepted by the revenue authorities, thereby recognising their possession and revenue rights over the land.
According to the appellants, the dispute began only after the original respondent approached the Board of Revenue in the year 2015 claiming ownership over the land. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Board, the Circle Officer allegedly ordered issuance of rent receipts in favour of the respondent without granting the appellants an opportunity of hearing. It was contended that such action violated the fundamental principles of natural justice since the issuance of rent receipts directly affected their existing rights and interests.
The appellants further alleged that the respondent had obtained favourable orders by relying upon forged and fabricated documents. They argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the significance of their long-standing possession, earlier mutation entries and previous rent receipts issued in favour of their predecessors. They therefore sought interference with the judgment of the Single Judge and prayed that the impugned orders directing issuance of rent receipts in favour of the respondent be quashed.
The State authorities and the original respondent opposed the appeal by submitting that the entire case of the appellants rested on an incorrect factual foundation. They argued that the Board of Revenue had not created any fresh jamabandi in favour of the respondent in 2015. Instead, the jamabandi had already been opened in the respondent’s favour in 1965 through Miscellaneous Case Nos. 17 of 1964-65 and 18 of 1964-65, and rent receipts had been continuously issued in his favour for several years thereafter.
The respondents contended that the Board of Revenue had merely directed the revenue authorities to continue issuing rent receipts because the respondent’s jamabandi already existed in official records. Since the authorities were performing a ministerial function based upon an existing revenue entry, no notice to third parties was legally required. They further argued that if the appellants disputed the validity of the jamabandi or asserted superior title over the property, the appropriate remedy was to institute a civil suit before a competent civil court rather than seek cancellation of revenue entries through administrative proceedings.
Court’s Judgment:
After examining the records, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Court held that the appellants had proceeded on an erroneous factual assumption that the respondent’s jamabandi had been opened pursuant to the Board of Revenue’s directions in 2015. The materials on record clearly demonstrated that the jamabandi had in fact been created as early as 1965, and rent receipts had been issued in favour of the respondent from the revenue years 1964-65 to 1976-77.
The Court observed that the Board of Revenue had not created any new rights in favour of the respondent. Its directions merely required the revenue authorities to issue rent receipts because an existing and valid jamabandi was already operating in the respondent’s name. Consequently, the action of the Circle Officer amounted only to implementation of existing revenue records and not to creation of any fresh title or revenue entry.
The Bench then examined the statutory framework governing maintenance of revenue records under the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. It noted that the Act does not contain any provision authorising revenue authorities to cancel a jamabandi once it has been validly opened in favour of a raiyat. In the absence of such statutory power, any attempt by revenue authorities to cancel or ignore an existing jamabandi would be wholly without jurisdiction and legally void.
The Court emphasised that revenue authorities are creatures of statute whose powers are confined strictly to those expressly conferred by legislation. Administrative authorities cannot assume powers merely because they consider such action appropriate or expedient. Where the statute is silent, no implied authority to cancel a jamabandi can be inferred.
Reaffirming the settled legal position, the Bench categorically held that a long-running jamabandi can only be cancelled by a competent civil court. Questions relating to title, validity of settlement, ownership or competing proprietary claims require adjudication by civil courts after appreciation of evidence. Revenue authorities, whose primary responsibility is maintenance of revenue records and collection of land revenue, cannot adjudicate complicated questions of title by cancelling existing revenue entries.
The Court observed that once a jamabandi continues to remain in favour of a raiyat, the revenue authorities are under a legal obligation to accept rent and issue rent receipts in accordance with the existing records. Refusal to issue rent receipts despite the subsistence of a valid jamabandi would amount to acting contrary to law and the statutory scheme governing land revenue administration.
Addressing the appellants’ plea of violation of natural justice, the Bench rejected the contention that a prior hearing was mandatory before issuing rent receipts. The Court clarified that issuance of rent receipts pursuant to an already existing jamabandi is a purely consequential administrative act. Since no new rights were being created and no existing revenue entry was being altered, there was no legal requirement to issue notice to third parties claiming competing rights over the property.
The Court further observed that if every issuance of a rent receipt required notice to rival claimants, routine revenue administration would become unnecessarily complicated and unworkable. The proper stage for adjudicating rival claims is before a competent civil court, where parties can produce evidence, examine witnesses and obtain a binding declaration regarding their respective rights.
With regard to the allegations of forgery raised by the appellants, the Court held that such disputed questions of fact could not be effectively examined in writ proceedings. Allegations involving fabricated documents, disputed title and competing claims over immovable property require detailed evidentiary examination, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts rather than constitutional courts exercising writ jurisdiction.
The Division Bench therefore concluded that the learned Single Judge had committed no legal error in refusing to interfere with the issuance of rent receipts. Since the respondent’s jamabandi had existed for several decades and had never been cancelled by any competent civil court, the revenue authorities were legally justified in continuing to issue rent receipts in his favour.
Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not prejudice the appellants’ right to pursue any other remedy available under law. If they believed that the respondent’s jamabandi had been illegally created or that they possessed superior title over the disputed land, they were free to institute appropriate proceedings before a competent civil court for adjudication of their rights.
The judgment serves as a significant reaffirmation of the limited jurisdiction of revenue authorities and the exclusive role of civil courts in determining title disputes. It reinforces the principle that revenue records facilitate fiscal administration and cannot be altered arbitrarily in the absence of statutory authority. By holding that long-standing jamabandi entries remain effective until set aside by a competent civil court, the Jharkhand High Court has strengthened legal certainty in land administration while ensuring that disputes relating to ownership are resolved through the proper judicial forum.