Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Amitav Kumar, Son of late Khemanand Pandit @ Hemanand Pandit & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 1029 of 2006
Decided On : 21-03-2018
Jurisdictional Error - Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act - Section 60, Section 59, Section 27, Section 28 - The court found that the impugned order was not a review but a suo motu exercise of revisional power under Section 59 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, and thus did not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition was filed to quash an order cancelling three settlements made in favor of the original writ petitioner. The settlements were challenged on the grounds of jurisdictional error, residency, and compliance with the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error and that the settlements could not have been made in favor of the original writ petitioner, who was not a resident of the village where the land was settled. The court also upheld the cancellation of the settlements due to non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act.
Issues: Jurisdictional error, residency of the petitioner, compliance with the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, and the settlements could not have been made in favor of the petitioner due to residency requirements and non-compliance with the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
1. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Mrs. Nitu Singh, Advocate.
2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing for the respondents-state.
3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2004, passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Division, Dumka, in RMA Case No. 132/1993-94, whereby the order dated 17.05.1993, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj in RMP Case No. 37/84-85 has been upheld and the three settlements made in favour of Khemanand Pandit @ Hemanand Pandit( original writ petitioner since deceased and substituted by his legal heirs) has been cancelled.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submits as under:-
(a) Following three settlements in Mouza-Barachandbasi in Sahebganj District were made in favour of the original writ petitioner:-
i. 3 bighas of plot no. 223 by order dated 31.01.1956, passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibganj in Settlement Case No. 170 of 1955-56.
ii. 2 bighas , 16 Khatas and 17 dhurs of plot no. 331 and 4 bighas of plot no. 323 by order dated 03.11.1959 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, in Settlement Case No. 54/1959-60.
iii. 10 bighas of plot no. 323 by order dated 25.01.1969 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 143/1968-69 arising out of settlement case no 111 of 1964-65.
(b) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the original writ petitioner was resident of village Telo, which is adjoining to village Barachandbasi in the District of Sahibganj.
(c) Vide order dated 31.01.1956, the Pradhan of village Barachandbasi had made an application before the Sub Divisional Officer proposing settlement of land in favour of 8 persons including original writ petitioner , which was duly granted to the petitioner vide order being Settlement Case No. 170 of 1955-56.
(d) Thereafter another petition was filed being Settlement Case No. 54/59-60 by the Pradhan of village Barachandbasi for settlement of further property in favour of the original writ petitioner mentioning therein that he is a very poor Jamabandi Raiyat of village Telo and village Barachand Basi is quite adjacent to village Telo. It was also mentioned that the settlement of the property involved in Settlement Case No. 54/1959-60 was settled in his favour around 5 years ago. An application was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer for approval of the settlement. Thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibganj is said to have issued notice to the 16 anna jamabandi raiyat to file their objection and ultimately the raiyats raised no objection and therefore the land was settled in favour of the original writ petitioner vide order dated 03.11.1959.
(e) So far as 3rd settlement is concerned, this is also related to the property in the village Barachandbasi and the settlement case was numbered as 111/1964-65 and vide order dated 10.08.1968, the Sub Divisional Officer, Rajmahal at Sahibganj had refused to settle the property in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is an outsider. Against this, the original writ petitioner filed appeal before the Appellate Authority which was numbered as Revision Misc. Appeal No. 143/1968-69 and was disposed of in favour of the original writ petitioner vide order dated 25.01.1969.
(f) Learned counsel further submits that these orders were brought to the notice of the learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, and one Santhal Pargana Revision Misc. Reference Case No. 38/82-83 was started in which order dated 17.02.1983 was passed which reads as follows:-
“This is a reference made by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas vide his order dated 21.04.1982 in R.M.P. Case No. 5/81-82 for according permission under Section 60 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 to review the orders of the Additional Deputy Commission
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
