Waste land can be settled in favor of non-Jamabandi Raiyats with the consent of the Sub-Divisional Officer, as per Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949.

JUDGMENT :

[Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]

1. With consent of the parties, hearing of the matter was done through video conferencing and there was no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality.

2. The following issue has been referred by a learned Single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench :-

Whether the judgment and order passed in Sheikh Allauddin & Others v. State of Bihar & Others [2000 (2) BLJR 1084] by the Patna High Court which has been subsequently followed by this Court in Baldeo Mandal v. The State of Bihar & Others [2006 (3) JLJR 663] or the order passed in Mihir Kumar Jha Vs. The State of Bihar & Others [1997 (1) PLJR 716] will govern the field in respect of settlement of waste land and vacant holdings in favour of Jamabandi Raiyats or Permanent Raiyat or Permanent Resident of the village and recorded in the Records of Right.

3. The writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief :-

“(1) That in the instant writ petition, the petitioners pray for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/rule (s)/order (s)/direction (s) for quashing the order No.20/2005 dated 13.04.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Misc. Case No.55/98-99 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition by which the Respondent No.3 has illegally allowed settlement of the lands measuring 2.12 acres out of Dag No.128 of Khata No.41 situated at Mouza-Karnibad P.S. Kunda, Dist. Dumka (Now Deoghar) in favour of the Respondent No.6 contrary to the provision contained in Section 28 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act although the Respondent No.6 is neither Jamabandi Raiyat nor permanent resident of the said village and for quashing the order dated 19.02.07 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.A. No.32/05-06 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition by which the Respondent No.2 has illegally dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners on absolutely irrelevant consideration of the materials on the record and for such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners are legally entitled to.”

4. The petitioners claim themselves to be the Jamabandi Raiyats of Mouza Karhanibad, P.S. Kunda, District Dumka (now Deoghar) and belong to the members of Scheduled Caste community.

A piece of land measuring an area of 2.95 acres, out of Plot No.128 appertaining to Jamabandi No.41 of Mouza Karnibad stood recorded as Parti Kadim in the last Gantzer’s settlement records. Out of 2.95 acres, 2.50 acres of land was settled in favour of the grandfather of the petitioners along with other Raiyats, vide order dated 28.10.1940 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Deoghar in Settlement Case No.86/39-40, delivery of possession was also given to the settlee with respect to the aforesaid lands.

The writ petitioners came into possession of the said land and while in possession, the Respondent No.6, namely, Girish Kumar Dubey, an ex-serviceman and resident of another village, namely, Puwari Kothia, P.S. Jasidih, District Deoghar, applied for settlement of the lands which was in the possession of the petitioners, being registered as Settlement Case No.41/1997-98.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar, vide order dated 12.12.1998, recommended for settlement of 2.12 acres of land out of Dag No.128 of Khata No.41 of the said village in favour of Respondent No.6.

The Deputy Commissioner did not accept the report of Sub-Divisional Officer and made enquiry on the point that since the Respondent No.6 is resident of another village, why he did not chose to get settlement of the land in his own village and sent back the record to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh enquiry into the matter vide order dated 07.06.2000.

The Sub-Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry relating to Settlement Case No.41/97-98 and vide letter dated 21.03.2005 sent the report proposing therein that the land should not be settled with the Respondent No.6 and accordingly, recommendation was not made for settlement of the said land in favour of Respondent No.6.

The