Patna HC Quashes Jamabandi Cancellation Case Initiated During Pendency of Writ, Orders Rent Receipts Restored
The Patna High Court deprecated the Circle Officer's mid-litigation move to cancel a 60-year-old jamabandi, holding the State's only remedy is a civil suit.
The High Court of Judicature at Patna, in a writ petition filed by Krishna Kumar Goenka, has quashed Cancellation Case No.39 of 2023 initiated by the Additional Collector, Jamui, and directed the Circle Officer, Khaira, Jamui, to resume issuing rent receipts to the petitioner with immediate effect. Justice Sourendra Pandey, sitting singly, found that the State of Bihar had acted in an “autocratical manner” by recommending and then initiating cancellation proceedings against a jamabandi that had subsisted for over 60 years — and had done so while the writ application was still pending before the Court. The judgment, delivered orally on 18 June 2026, also warned that any future action by the State outside a competent civil court would be treated as contemptuous.
The Dispute Before the Court
Krishna Kumar Goenka, acting through his power of attorney holder Arun Kumar Goenka, is a resident of Laxmi Bhawan, Munger. His grievance was straightforward: rent receipts that had been issued to him continuously for the last 60 years were stopped without warning by the revenue authorities.
The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, placed before the Court a prior history involving the petitioner's two brothers. Those brothers had earlier approached the Patna High Court over the same land, which carried a longstanding jamabandi that the State had permitted to continue for decades. In that earlier round of litigation, the Court had set aside a notice issued under Section 3(H) and held categorically that the State's only recourse was to approach a civil court of competent jurisdiction to contest the jamabandi.
Despite that clear direction, the State of Bihar — rather than filing a civil suit — took a different route. It stopped issuing rent receipts to Krishna Kumar Goenka, the third brother, who had not been a party to the earlier proceedings. The respondents named in the present writ were the State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms; the Principal Secretary of that department; the District Magistrate, Jamui; the Circle Officer, Khaira; and the Circle Inspector, Khaira.
Cancellation Proceedings Initiated Mid-Writ
The conduct that drew the sharpest rebuke from the Court was what happened after the writ petition was filed. During the pendency of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16876 of 2022, the Circle Officer, Khaira, recommended cancellation of the petitioner's jamabandi. Acting on that recommendation, the Additional Collector went ahead and instituted Cancellation Case No.39 of 2023.
The Court described this sequence as the Circle Officer having “the audacity” to recommend cancellation while the matter was sub judice. Justice Pandey found that the State had not merely defied the earlier orders of the Court but had also bypassed settled judicial pronouncements holding that a longstanding jamabandi cannot be cancelled in summary proceedings.
The Legal Principle Applied
Justice Pandey anchored the reasoning in a Patna High Court precedent: The King v. Parmanand and Others, reported in AIR (36) 1949 Patna 222. The Court quoted the passage directly:
“It is a cardinal principle that when a matter is pending for decision before a Court of justice nothing should be done which might disturb the free course of justice.”
The 1949 ruling had gone on to state that the Court would not countenance any attempt by an executive official, however senior, to prejudge the merits of a case or to usurp the functions of the court that had taken seisin of the matter. Justice Pandey applied that principle directly to the facts: the Circle Officer's recommendation and the Additional Collector's initiation of Cancellation Case No.39 of 2023 were both taken while the writ was pending, and both were therefore bad in law.
The Court also reiterated the substantive position on jamabandi: a longstanding jamabandi cannot be cancelled through summary proceedings. If the State wishes to challenge such a jamabandi, the only permissible route is a civil suit before a court of competent jurisdiction. This had already been stated in the earlier proceedings involving the petitioner's brothers, and the present judgment reaffirmed it in relation to the petitioner's own jamabandi.
The State's Conduct Characterised as Autocratical
Justice Pandey did not confine the criticism to the procedural impropriety of acting during pendency. He characterised the broader pattern of State conduct as autocratical. The Court found that the authorities had shown defiance not only to the specific orders passed in the earlier writ petitions filed by the two brothers but also to the general body of judicial pronouncements on summary cancellation of jamabandi.
The design, as the Court saw it, was deliberate: having been told that it could not proceed against the two brothers through executive action, the State fashioned a separate approach targeting the third brother — stopping his rent receipts and then, once he approached the Court, initiating cancellation proceedings against his jamabandi while the writ was alive.
Outcome
Justice Sourendra Pandey allowed the writ application. The specific directions issued are as follows:
The action taken by the Circle Officer, Khaira, Jamui, in recommending cancellation of the petitioner's jamabandi during the pendency of the writ is deprecated. Cancellation Case No.39 of 2023, initiated by the Additional Collector, is held to be bad and is set aside.
The Circle Officer, Khaira, Jamui, is directed to start issuing rent receipts in favour of the petitioner with immediate effect.
If the State remains intent on taking any action against the petitioner, the only remedy available to it is to approach a competent civil court. Any action taken outside that route will be treated as contemptuous.