Jharkhand High Court
Punulal Mahra & Another vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 11 March, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P. (C) No. 2545 of 2004
........
Punulal Mahra & Another .... ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) ............
For the Petitioners : Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents/State: Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I. For the Respondent Nos. 5 to 15 : Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Advocate.
........
06/11.03.2022.
In compliance of order dated 21.09.2021, petitioners have filed a reply to the counter affidavit on 29.09.2021 filed by respondent nos. 5 to 15, stating therein that though the petitioners are resident of Mauza- Rudrapur, adjacent to Mauza - Naya Chitkath, where they have been given settlement of 02 acres of land after due process of law which has been set aside by the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, in terms of order dated 03.09.2001 / 10.09.2001 passed in R.M.A. Case No. 09/1990-91.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, that the land, which has been settled to the petitioners is adjacent land to both the Mauza, though it situates in Mauza - Naya Chitkath, as such, in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Patna High Court, in the case of Mihir Kumar Jha Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1997 1 PLJR 716, they have a right for settlement.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar without any material on record, has wrongly recorded that the petitioner no. 2 is a government servant at Deoghar College, which he has categorically denied in his reply and has further submitted that though petitioners are resident of different mauza, i.e. Rudrapur and their forefather have been granted land in different Mauza - Sariya, but considering the expansion of the family, the petitioners have applied for land, as they have only 16 decimals of land for house and bari for cultivation.
After considering the same, the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Deoghar has settled the land to the petitioners. Part of land has been -2- utilized for cultivation and part of land for growing trees, which has wrongly been considered by the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and affirmed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka on wrong appreciation.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that so far private respondent no. 5 to 15 are concerned, they are not landless persons, rather they have their ancestral land in addition to the land, which have been settled in Village - Naya Chitkath contrary to the provisions of law, as the settlement of land has to be done to the landless person, but it cannot be settled on the ground of availability of waste land and as per the wisdom of the Sub Divisional Officer or competent authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted, that the then Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has cancelled the settlement on the ground that their land is required for construction of Navodaya Vidyalaya at Naya Chitkath, but the same has already been constructed in different Mauza at Sariya, as such the purpose, for which settlement of land has been cancelled, is also of no worth as on today.
Learned counsel, Mr. Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 15 has submitted, that it may be one of the reasons, that the Navodaya Vidyalaya has been shifted to another place, but the waste land cannot be settled with any person of different jamabandi. The land has rightly been settled with the respondent nos. 5 to 15, so far waste land of Naya Chitkath is concerned and nowhere the petitioners have alleged that respondent nos. 5 to 15 have extra land in addition to the waste land, which have been settled with them.
Learned counsel, Mr. Rajiv Sinha appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 15 has submitted, that the Government land i.e. Waste Land cannot be settled in such manner, it can only be settled with a raiyat of the same Jamabandi, who is landless and requires land, but it cannot be settled as per the wisdom and choice of Settlee Officer.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court directs the present Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to file a detail -3- supplementary counter affidavit in person with regard to both the Mauzas i.e. Naya Chitkath and Rudarpur clarifying that how many waste lands have been settled to how many persons and under which settlement proceeding, whether those settlement have been done with landless person or it has been settled in addition to their own land by the competent authority at that time. Whether the State wants the land for Navodaya Vidyalaya or for any Government Project, which has been cancelled by impugned orders?
The affidavit must be filed in person by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar on proper verification of the spot with respect to the land of Mauza - Naya Chitkath as well as Mauza - Rudarpur.
Learned counsel, Mr. P.C. Roy appearing for the State as S.C. (L&C)-I is directed to ensure compliance of this order within a period of three weeks from today.
List this case after three weeks under the same heading. Let a copy of order be communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar at once through 'FAX'.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-