Family’s 57-year land dispute ends in relief as Patna High Court slams DM for ignoring settled title

The order continued that when a matter with respect to title has already been settled between the parties way back in the year 1983, till the stage of the high court, and no further petition is pending before any other court, cancelling the long-standing jamabandi in favour of the petitioner, cannot be permitted in the eyes of law.

57-year-old land dispute

The case involved a 17-decimal plot in Mauza-Hemra. The dispute began with a 1969 title suit between the grandfathers of the petitioner and another person, who is appearing as one of the respondents in this case.

Although the respondent’s grandfather, Gullo Yadav, originally won the suit with a cost award of Rs 66.25, the petitioner’s grandfather failed to pay. This led to an auction sale in 1979, where the petitioner’s land was sold for a meagre Rs 103 to Gullo Yadav, leading to the creation of jamabandi (official, updated record of land rights).

The petitioner’s grandfather successfully challenged the auction, and the dispute reached the Patna High Court in 1990. By order of the high court, the matter was settled by enhancing the cost to Rs 1,500, which the petitioner’s family paid, and the respondents accepted. Consequently, the auction was set aside, and the jamabandi was revived in favour of the petitioner’s family in 1988.

The current litigation arose nearly 19 years later, when the descendants of Gullo Yadav sought to cancel the petitioner’s jamabandi. While the additional collector dismissed this claim in 2018, the Bhagalpur DM reversed that decision in 2021.

The collector claimed the matter involved a “serious dispute of title” that was beyond his jurisdiction, effectively setting aside the previous factual findings.

Court’s findings

• The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, provides for a summary proceeding for mutation of land records with the sole object of maintaining updated revenue entries.
• It is a well-settled principle that mutation proceedings do not confer title and are only for fiscal purposes.
• The Supreme Court, in various judicial pronouncements, has held that mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title.
• The Bhagalpur DM has dealt with the factual aspect of the matter in detail and has noted the factum of creation of jamabandi in favour of the petitioner and even the reasons for cancellation of jamabandi, which was created in favour of the respondent.
• He has concluded that the dispute between the parties relates to a dispute of title, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the collector, and it can only be decided by a competent civil court.
• The Patna High Court found that the collector was wrong in holding that the additional collector had not considered the facts.
• It also noted a contradiction: while saying the dispute should be decided by a civil court, the collector still set aside the additional collector’s order without issuing a clear direction—neither restoring the respondent’s jamabandi nor cancelling that of the petitioner’s family.
• He also committed an error that, on one hand, he is relegating the parties to approach a competent civil court, holding it to be a dispute of title, and on the other hand, he has set aside the order of the additional collector without passing a positive order.