JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhupur is under challenge by which the settlement of the land which has been made in favour of the petitioner by virtue of settlement made sometime in the year 1988, has been cancelled.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading which is required to be enumerated read as hereunder :

The case of the writ petitioners is that the land in question being Plot No.74 of Mauja Bara Raja Bandh No.294 in Madhupur Sub-division, District Deoghar is originally recorded as Parti Kadim in the records of right.

The competent authority has settled the aforesaid land in favour of the writ petitioner No.1 on 15.03.1988 by virtue of Patta as has been appended as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The writ petitioners came to the possession of the aforesaid land and remained in possession. The Sub-Divisional Officer has initiated a proceeding for cancellation of the aforesaid settlement made in favour of the petitioner No.1. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhupur has considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. The documents pertaining to settlement of land, i.e., by virtue of order passed in Settlement Case No.898 of 1955-56 and Settlement Case No. 99 of 1955-56 were produced.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhupur after taking into consideration the aforesaid order of settlement by which the nature of the land has been changed from Parti Kadim to that of Gochar land, cancelled the settlement made in favour of the writ petitioner on 15.03.1988, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

3. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Sneha Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the land in question has been settled way back in the year 1988 and since then the land in question is in possession of the writ petitioners, therefore, the action for cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the writ petitioner ought to have been taken by the concerned respondents within a reasonable period, i.e., within a period of one year as provided under Section 32 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, therefore, the order impugned which has been passed after lapse of the period of one year cannot be said to be sustainable in the eye of law, as such, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and set aside.

4. None appears for the respondent-State of Jharkhand as also for the private respondents, although in pursuance to the notice issued by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2015, the private respondents have appeared, more so, the name of the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand is appearing in the daily cause list but even then none appeared.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and scrutinized the impugned order. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the land in question as per the Khatiyan is Parti Kadim but the said land has been settled for the purpose of grazing of cattle by making it Gochar by virtue of the order passed in Settlement Case No.898 of 1955-56 and Settlement Case No. 99 of 1955-56.

6. The concerned competent authority even knowing the fact that the land has become Gochar, i.e., for the purpose of grazing of cattle by virtue of the order passed by the authority having quasi-judicial power in Settlement Case No.898 of 1955-56 and Settlement Case No. 99 of 1955-56 but even then the settlement has been made in favour of the writ petitioner No.1 by virtue of Patta on 15.03.1988. The issue which requires to be examined in this case are :

(i) As to whether when the land in question has already been settled for grazing of cattle by changing the nature of the land to that of Gochar by virtue of order passed in quasi-judicial proceeding, can the subsequent settlement of the aforesaid land by way of Patta dated 15.03.1988 be said to be j