1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P. (C) No. 403 of 2013

Budhu Dom alias Budhu Bansfore Son of late Langru

Dom, resident of Mahagama, P.O. and P.S. Mahagama,

District-Godda

.…

…

Petitioner

Versus

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Deputy

Commissioner,

Godda,

P.O.,

P.S.

and

District-Godda.

3.Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Godda, P.O., P.S.

and District-Godda.

4.Sub Divisional Officer, Godda, P.O., P.S. and District-

Godda.

5.Circle Officer, Mahagama, P.O., P.S. Mahagama,

District-Godda.

6.Block Development Officer, Mahagama, P.O., P.S.

Mahagama, District-Godda … Respondents

-------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Ram Chandra Sahu, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey,

A.C to S.C. (L&C) I

------

Order No. 6/Dated 27^th November, 2021

The matter has been taken up through video

conferencing.

2.

This writ petition has been filed under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate

direction

upon

the

respondents

to

restore

his

possession over the land situated at Plot No. 1013

under Mahagama Block in J.B. No. 202, Mouza

2

Mahagama measuring 1 Khatha 13 Dhurs, which was

settled in favour of petitioner vide Case No. 4/6 of

1969-70 by the Circle Officer under Bihar Privileged

Persons Homestead Tenancy Act.

3.

The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings

made in the writ petition, which is required to be

enumerated herein, read as hereunder:

It is the case of the writ petitioner that the land

in question was settled in favour of writ petitioner vide

Case No. 4/6 of 1969-70 under Bihar Privileged

Persons Homestead Tenancy Act for the purpose of

homestead with a fixed rent. After settlement of the

aforesaid land, he was paying rent to the authorities

concerned and since then the petitioner is in

possession over the land in question and constructed

house thereupon.

But all of a sudden, the petitioner came to know

that aforesaid constructed building is going to be

demolished by the respondents on the frivolous

complaints made by some persons to which he

responded

by

filing

representation

but

the

respondents-authorities without paying any heed to the

representation

of

the

petitioner

demolished

the

construction made on the aforesaid land. Therefore, the

3

present writ petition has been filed by the writ

petitioner seeking appropriate direction upon the

respondents to restore his possession over the land in

question.

4.

Counter affidavit dated 14.08.2013 has been

filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 6 wherein stand

inter alia has been taken that plot in question is

recorded as “Gochar Rasta” as such under the

provision of Section 69 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy

Act, 1949, it cannot be settled or transferred to any

person. Therefore, an Encroachment proceeding vide

Case No. 01/2011-12 was initiated against the

petitioner and others, in which, order for demolition

was passed vide order dated 19.07.2011 and after

serving final notice on 22.07.2011 the house of the

petitioner was demolished on 07.01.2013.

5.

Mr. Ram Chandra Sahu, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the land in question has been

settled way back in the year 1969 vide Case No. 4/6

dated 12.03.1969 and since then it is in possession of

the writ petitioner and they are paying rent to the

authorities concerned. It has further been submitted

that petitioner’s possession over the land in question

has never been held illegal by the respondents and

4

petitioner was residing with his family members by

constructing a pucca house thereon. Therefore, action

of the respondents-authorities of demolishing the

building by dispossessing the petitioners is illegal.

6.

Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, A.C to learned S.C.

(L&C) I submitted reiterating the statement made in the

counter affidavit that the house o