Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Even though in the order dated 6.2.1979 Respondent No. 3 claimed the land of khasra No. 89 as a Government Land he was not justified in ignoring the facts that while dealing with the request for settlement made by one Sunil Kumar Sinha and others, the Anchal authorities in their reports as contained in Annexure-6 and 6/A have categorically reported that this land does not form part of the Sairat mentioned in the Sairat Register and that during the local enquiry it had transpired to them that these lands were settled by the outgoing landlord in 1359 Fasli (1952). It further appears from the order dated 16.12.1975 of the Anchal Adhikari (Annexure-6-B) that the lands in question had already been settled by the outgoing landlord and thus no land had remained for settlement without Sunil Kumar Sinha aforementioned and others. It thus appears that the stand of the State that there was no settlement of the lands in question with the petitioners stand falsified by the reports of their own authorities. It is intriguing as to what prevented the Respondent No. 2 in not initiating proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act if he was of the view that the settlement in question have been made for causing loss etc. to the State.

There is no legal bar to an oral settlement of raiyati lands. The mere fact that a registered document is not executed would not effect either the validity of the settlement if actually made, or show that in fact no settlement was made. The first reason for rejecting the case of the settlee does not appear to be sustainable in law. So far as the report of the Anchal Adhikari is concerned, it has to be appreciated that the report is a mere assertion of the officers of the State. The said assertion has to be substantiated by cogent and acceptable evidence and materials which must be adduced in a case if there is contest in relation to the report. No conclusion could, therefore, be based only on the basis of the report.
In this very case it was further laid down as follows:
So far as the report of the Anchal Adhikari is concerned, it has to be appreciated that the report is a mere assertion of the officers of the State. The said assertion has to be substantiated by cogent and acceptable evidence and materials which must be adduced in a case if contest in relation to the report. No conclusion could, therefore, be passed only on the basis of the report.

14. Yet, another Division Bench in CWJC No. 1004 of 1973--Bimla Kumari Devi v. The State of Bihar and Ors., decided on 2nd December, 1975 while dealing with the quashing of the orders passed under Section 4(h) of the Act, wherein one of the reasons given by the authorities was that the settlement of gairmazrua land was not permissible in law held as follows: