JUDGMENT :

The present case is taken up through video conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.07.2019 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Circle Officer, Khunti (the respondent no. 7) in Misc. Case No. 03 of 2018-19 by which the settlement made in favour of the petitioner’s father has been declared to be illegal and consequently the claim of the petitioner for rectification of the area mentioned in the recent receipts issued by the Circle Officer has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for restraining the respondents from raising any construction over the petitioner’s land or alternatively to pay appropriate compensation to him under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short, “the Act, 2013”) in lieu of the land being put in use by the respondents.

3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the ex-landlord namely Kashinath Ram had settled the land appertaining to Khata No. 39, plot no. 35 measuring area of 2.43 acres, plot no. 29 measuring area of 5.16 acres, plot no. 30 measuring area of 0.21 acre and plot no. 26 measuring area of 4.95 acres (total area 12.75 acres) (hereinafter to be referred as “the said land”) in favour of the petitioner’s father namely Bahur Ram vide a ‘Sada Hukumnama’ dated 09.02.1946, which was originally recorded as ‘gairmazurwa malik khas’ and accordingly his father came in possession of the said land. On vesting of intermediary interest, the petitioner’s father was found in possession over the said land and accordingly he was assessed to fair and equitable rent. Consequently, the name of the petitioner’s father was entered in Tenant’s Ledger and he was recognized as a raiyat under the State. The father of the petitioner died on 19.07.2006 leaving behind the petitioner and thereafter he came in possession of the said land. The petitioner found that out of 12.75 acres of land, the rent receipt for the revenue year 2010-11 was issued only for 2.75 acres of land and as such he represented the respondent no. 7 on 24.01.2019 annexing all the relevant documents regarding his right, title and interest over the said land and requested him to issue rent receipt for entire 12.75 acres of land, however, no action was taken in this regard. Finding no alternative, the petitioner approached the Chief Minister’s Jan Samvad vide his application dated 08.02.2019 which was registered as Grievance No. 29917363 dated 08.02.2019 and in consequence of the same, the respondent no. 7 initiated proceeding being Misc. Case No. 03/2018-19 however by way of impugned order dated 24.07.2019, rejected the petitioner’s application. Hence the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 7 passed the impugned order without considering the relevant facts or conducting any physical verification. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 7 has exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the said land and holding that the documents produced by him are forged and fabricated. Moreover, the order of the respondent no. 7 indicates that some portion of the said land appertaining to plot nos. 26 and 29 have purportedly been settled with some raiyats, however the same has been done without any notice or information to the petitioner or his predecessor. The said settlees have never been in possession of the respective land settled with them by the respondents. It is also submitted that as a result of the arbitrary and illegal order passed by the respondent no. 7, a “Knowledge City” is proposed to be built over the said land of the petitioner without acquiring the same and paying compensation in lieu thereof. Even no notice was ever served to the petitioner regarding the proposed acquisition. The said action of the respondent no. 7 amounts to forceful dispossession of the