Allowed¶¶31

Jageshwar Prajapati v. the State of Jharkhand

Land Reforms – Section 4h, Bihar (now Jharkhand) Land Reforms Act, 1950 – Jamabandi cancellation

Jharkhand HC13 Jul 2026WPC/1240/2021

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral citation 2026:JHHC:20719; WP(C) No.1240 of 2021, decided 13.07.2026, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, Ananda Sen, J. Keywords: Section 4h Bihar Land Reforms Act; doubtful 4h case; jamabandi cancellation; gairmazarua khas; jangal-jhari; tand; zamindari vesting; settlement by State 1975-76; erstwhile Zamindar transfer to defeat Act; Additional Collector Ramgarh; Kuju, Mandu, Ramgarh; notice 04.02.2021 quashed; civil court recourse for title.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; notice dated 04.02.2021 issued in Doubtful 4h Case No. 36 of 2020-21 quashed; liberty left to the State to pursue title over the property in the appropriate Civil Court if law permits. ¶¶31

Jageshwar Prajapati Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether a proceeding under Section 4h of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Doubtful 4h Case No. 36 of 2020-21) seeking cancellation of the petitioner's jamabandi is sustainable when the settlement of the land was made by the State itself in 1975-76 and not by the erstwhile Zamindar. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

Section 4h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act empowers the Collector to make inquiry only in respect of transfers - including settlements or leases - of land comprised in an estate or tenure, or transfers of any interest in land, made by the erstwhile Zamindar where such transfer is made to defeat the provisions of the Act.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

On the Bihar Land Reforms Act coming into force, the Zamindar's land vested in the State and the State became the ultimate owner of the land in question.

¶¶24

Key takeaways

Since the settlement here was made by the State itself in 1975-76, after the Act came into force, Section 4h cannot apply even if the settlement were improper or illegal, as there was admittedly no alleged transfer by the Zamindar to defeat the purpose of the Act.ratio¶¶25
As there is no application of Section 4h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act on these facts, the notice dated 04.02.2021 issued in the proceeding is quashed.ratio¶¶29
It will remain open to the State to approach the appropriate Civil Court if it wants title over the property in question, if law permits.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land Reforms - Section 4h, Bihar (now Jharkhand) Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Jamabandi cancellation - Doubtful 4h Case No. 36 of 2020-21 - High Court of Jharkhand (Ananda Sen, J.) holds that Section 4h reaches only transfers, settlements or leases by the erstwhile Zamindar made to defeat the Act; where the State itself settled the land in 1975-76, after vesting under the Act, the provision has no application even if the settlement is claimed improper or illegal. Notice dated 04.02.2021 seeking cancellation of the petitioner's jamabandi over 5.39 acres (Plot No. 22, Khata No. 2, village Kuju, PS Mandu, District Ramgarh) quashed; writ petition allowed; State free to litigate title in Civil Court if law permits.

¶1

2026:JHHC:20719

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

WP(C) No.1240 of 2021

¶4

¶5

Jageshwar Prajapati, son of Late Moti Kumhar, aged about 61 years, Village and Post Office-Kuju, P.S. Mandu, DistrictRamgarh. … Petitioner(s).

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & DistrictRamgarh.

¶9

The Additional Collector, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & DistrictRamgarh.

¶10

The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & District- Ramgarh.

¶11

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & DistrictRamgarh.

¶12

The District Land Acquisition Officer, Ramgarh, P.O., P.S. & Distrct- Ramgarh.

¶13

The Circle Officer, Mandu, P.O. & P.S. Mandu, DistrictRamgarh. … Respondent(s).

¶14

CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate

¶17

Mr. Nehru Mahto, Advocate For the State : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, SC-IV Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV

¶18

12 / 13.07.2026 : Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶19

2. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has challenged initiation of the proceeding under Section 4h of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Land Reforms Act, 1950 by the Additional Collector, Ramgarh in Doubtful 4h Case No. 36 of 2020-21 whereby the respondents are trying to cancel the jamabandi of the petitioner in respect of land measuring 5.39 acres pertaining to plot no. 22 under Khata No. 2 of village-Kuju, PS Mandu, District Ramgarh. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that admittedly the land was not transferred by the erstwhile Zamindar.

¶20

¶21

2026:JHHC:20719

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that the land was settled in favour of the father of the petitioner by virtue of Settlement Case (i.e. Annexure-4 series and Annexure-9 series).

¶23

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the land was earlier recorded as agricultural land with forest cover and thus, the nature was recorded as jangal-jhari gairmazarua khas land. Learned counsel for the State also submits that there are records to suggest that the land at the time of settlement was shown as “ tand” only to avoid the rigors of settlement of a forest land. It has been submitted that fraudulently the land was transferred but he admits that the transfer was by way of settlement by the government Authorities i.e. Deputy Collector Land Reforms.

¶24

5. Section 4h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act gives power to the Collector to make inquiry in respect of any transfer including settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest of the land by the erstwhile Zamindar where such transfer is made to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. After coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act the land of the Zamindar was vested with the State and the State was made the ultimate owner of the land in question.

¶25

6. In this case admittedly the settlement was made in the year 1975-76 by the State i.e. much after coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act of 1950. Once the settlement is being made even though the settlement may be not proper or illegal, there can be no application of Section 4h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act since the same was done by the State, that too, in the year 1975-76. In this case admittedly there was no alleged transfer by the Zamindar to defeat the purpose of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

¶26

7. Thus, on the facts of this case as there is no application

¶27

¶28

2026:JHHC:20719

¶29

13.07.2026 Tanuj/CP-2

¶30

of Section 4h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Consequently the notice dated 04.02.2021 is quashed.

¶31

8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed .

¶32