SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Pat) 620

PATNA HIGH COURT
M.Y.Eqbal, J.
Mihir Kumar Jha
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2659 of 1985 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 1996

Headnote:Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act (Supplementary provision Act) 1949, Section 27, 28, 59 and Records of Rights-Rule 16 (A)-cancellation of settlement-Sub-divisional Officer after complying all necessary requirements passing a final order for settlement-Dy Commissioner cancelling the order of Sub-divisional Officer on the ground that settle was not a resident of that district and settlement is made with non-Jamabandi raiyats-Commissioner afferming the order of Deputy Commissioner holding that although the decision of Sub-divisional officer can not be faulted Oil procedural grounds it fails to safeguared the interest of village community-Held settlement made by the Sub-divisional Officer is not again an of the mandatory provisions of the Act-Act does not in express term debar the authorities to make settlement of waste land with non-jamabandi raiyats. (Paras 11 & 13)

Judgment

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.3.1984 passed by Deputy Commissioner" Deoghar in Misc. Revision-No. 79 of 1983-84 and also the order of the Commissioner of Santhal Pargans dated 20.5.1985 passed in Revenue Misc Appeal No. 105 of 1984-85. By the said order dated 22.3.1984 the Deputy Commissioner retrospectively cancelled the settlement of about 3 acres of land in plot No. 63 which was settled with the petitioner by the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was confirmed by the Commissioner of the Santhal Paragana by the impugned order dated 20.5.1985.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The petitioner made an application to the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar for settlement of 10 acres of waste land in plot No. 63 of village Khijuria, P.S. Mahanpur, District-Santhal Paragana for horticultural purposes. The said application was sent by the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Pargans referred the matter to Government through the Divisional Commissioner of Bhagalpur. The State Government issued instructions that the local authorities, were competent to make the proposed settlement with the petitioner. On receipt of this direction form the Government the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar started proceeding for settlement of waste land as stated above. The petitioners further case was that before the settlement the Sub-divisional Officer had called for a report from the Anchal Adhikari through the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Deoghar who after enquiries submitted a report on 26.6.1981 making a recommendation for settlement of 3 acres of land within plot No. 63 with the petitioner. Accordingly, Sub-divisional officer issued notice to the 16 anna raiyats inviting objections if any. It was alleged that Lakan Das Sahdeo Das and Dhaneshwar Das of Mauja Khiljuria filed objections but after filing objection the objectors never appeared. The Sub-divisional Officer said to have made necessary local enquiry and inspection on 22.5.1982 with Circle Officer, Mohanpur and thereafter passed an order making settlement of 3 acres of land to the petitioner for plot No. 3 which is the disputed land. The petitioner further stated that after the said settlement delivery of possession was made to the petitioner by the Sub-divisional Officer and the petitioner came in possession thereto and his name was mutated in the record of the Anchal Office and the petitioner paid that rent to the State of Bihar since 1982. It was further stated that after the settlement and delivery of possession the petitioner reclaimed the entire waste land at his own cost and dug a well for irrigation purposes which was sanctioned by the Block Development Officer and the petitioner, was given subsidy for the purpose. The petitioner constructed a farm house at an expenditure of Rs. 15, 000.00 . The petitioners further case was that all on a sudden the petitioner received a notice on 12.3.1984 by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar stating, inter-alia, that settlement made by the Sub-divisional Officer of the disputed land was illegal and the Deputy Commissioner proposed to re-open the matter with a view to cancel the settlement. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order cancelled the settlement. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur which was numbered as Revenue Appeal No. 1 of 1984-85. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur admitted the appeal and stayed further action by an order dated 9.4.1984. The appear was transferred to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargans and the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas after hearing the parties dismissed the same in terms of an order dated 20.5.1985, copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the writ application.

3. Mr. R.C. Sinha, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently challenged the auth





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top