Proper grounds and verification of cultivation are essential for the cancellation of land settlement under Section 33 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949.

1. Heard Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing on behalf of the respondent state.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief’s:-

(i) For issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 not to make construction for government use or need if any on the plot of land measuring 2 acres within Khata No. 54 being part of Dag No. 369 Mouza Katanki, District-Jamatara which was duly settled in favour of the petitioner’s father namely Late Panchu Hembrom in accordance with law.

(ii) Further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 13.03.2003 passed in R.M. Case No. 3 of 2002-03 by the respondent no. 3 whereby and whereunder the aforesaid settlement has been cancelled after 33 years of settlement even without proper appreciation of relevant provision of law as laid down under Section 33 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949 which is the only provision for setting aside the settlement of waste land if not cultivated within 5 years.

(iii) For issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to reconsider their decision to use the land in question for construction of government offices etc. in view of the fact that the petitioner was dependent upon the plot of land in question for his livelihood.

(iv) For issuance of direction upon the concerned respondent to compensate the petitioner either by allotting a suitable alternate plot of land or making payment of some monetary compensation.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the settlement of two acres of land in plot no. 369 out of total area of 15.20 acres was made in favour of the petitioner by the Pradhan of the village Katanki District Jamtara under Section 27 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949 vide Patta dated 05.03.1972 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. He submits that by the impugned order dated 23.02.2003 passed in R.M. Case No. 3/2002-2003, final order was passed cancelling the settlement made in favour of the petitioner under Section 33 of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner had made specific statement in paragraph no. 19 of the writ petition which reads as under:-

“The petitioner states that moreover before passing the impugned order no proper verification/inspection has been made by any expert or agriculturist to find out whether the land in question has been brought under cultivation or not.”

5. Pursuant to this statement, the order dated 16.01.2018 was passed by this Court asking the respondents to produce the record of R.M. Case No. 3/2002-03 from the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Jamtara and also file inspection report by way of supplementary affidavit. Accordingly, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the copy of the inspection report of Circle Officer, Jamtara has been filed along with a copy of the inspection report of Halka Karmchari.

6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the inspection report it appears that the property which was allotted to the petitioner was utilized by the petitioner by converting it into a ‘Bari’. He also submits that from the inspection report of Halka Karmchari, it appears that the petitioner was found to be in the possession of the property. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the condition precedent for applicability of Section 33 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act is that the same can be cancelled only if it is not brought under the cultivation within a period of 5 years from the date of settlement. He submits that as admittedly the ‘Bari’ was found in the property involved in this case which means that the property has been brought under cultivation , therefore there was no occasion for the respondents to cancel the settlement in exercise of power under Section 33 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1949.

7. Counsel for the responden