Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 29 (JHR)

Deepak Nag And Sheo Kumar v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-01-07

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Since both the cases arises out of the common impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and therefore, both the cases were taken up together and are being decided by this common order. 2. These twelve petitioners have challenged the order dated 17.7.2001 (Annexure-9) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi disposing of 18 Misc. Cases by a common order, whereby the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, held that the settlement of the lands of Khata No. 246 and plot No. 464 of Mauja Kanke made in favour of the 18 persons including the petitioners by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Ranchi was without jurisdiction and Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi had no jurisdiction to settle the Kaisare Hind land and thereby directed to cancel the settlement made in their favour. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the lands in question i.e. portion of R.S. plot No. 465, Khata No. 246 of Village Kanke, District, Ranchi were settled with them by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi after following due procedure and after the settlement paying rent in respect of the land settled in their favour and they have also constructed their houses over part of the settled land and they are residing therein. The further case of the petitioners is that a notice to the show cause was issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as to why the order of settlement be not cancelled, to which the petitioners filed their show cause along with various documents and the letters of the State Government showing that Sub-Divisional Officer was competent to pass an order of settlement but the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by order dated 17.7.2001, passed in a batch of the cases, wrongly and illegally held that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi was not competent to grant settlement and accordingly he directed to cancel the settlement and to take back possession of the lands in question. 4. Respondents No. 4 to 7 have filed jointly counter affidavit. According to the counter affidavit, the case of the respondents are that plot No. 464 under Khata No. 246 being an area of 96 acres of village Kanke stands recorded in the Revisional Survey in the name of the Secretary of Estate for Indian Counsel as the landlord of the lands in question. According to the counter affidavit, the case of the respondents are that plot No. 464 under Khata No. 246 being an area of 96 acres of village Kanke stands recorded in the Revisional Survey in the name of the Secretary of Estate for Indian Counsel as the landlord of the lands in question. The column for raiyats in the khatiyan is blank and in the column of class land it has been mentioned as farm. The further case of the respondents is that since the disputed lands in question were settled in favour of the 18 persons including the petitioners by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Ranchi against the Government instruction and therefore, the separate miscellaneous proceedings were initiated for annulment of the settlement of the lands in question and the Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi heard all 18 cases together and held that Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi was not competent to settle the Kaisere Hind land and therefore, the settlement made by the Sub-Divisional Officer in favour of the 18 persons including the petitioners was without jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though in the Revisional survey the lands in question were recorded in the name of Secretary for Estate of Indian Council but in fact the lands in question were in possession of the State Government and therefore, as per the Government letter 21.7.1998 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition (WP (C) No. 5548/2001) the lands in question were rightly settled in favour of the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Ranchi who was competent to settle the same. 6. In W.P (C) No. 6737 of 2002 a further point has been raised on behalf of the petitioners that notice to show cause as contained in Annexures 3 and 3/A were issued only to show cause as to why the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioners be not cancelled but instead of canceling of Jamabandi the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has passed an order for cancellation the settlement itself made in favour of the 18 persons including the petitioners for which show cause notice was issued. 7. Considering the case of the respective parties and rival contentions made by them. 7. Considering the case of the respective parties and rival contentions made by them. I am of the opinion that the Government letters dated 5.8.1981 and 26.2.1982 as contained in Annexures-6 and 6/A to the W.P(C) No. 7637 of 2002 and the letter dated 21.7.1998 as contained in W.P.(C) No. 5548 of 2001, it does not appear that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi was competent to settle the land of Secretary of Estate for Indian Council and it is only the State Government was Competent to settle those lands. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that only the notice to show cause to cancel the Jamabandi was issued and not to cancel the settlement. I am of the view that Jamabandi is dependent upon the settlement and therefore, one was found by the Deputy Commissioner to make a settlement by the S.D.O is without jurisdiction and therefore, he rightly cancelled the settlement made by him. 8. In view of my above discussions and findings, I hold that no case at all has been made out by the petitioners for interference with the impugned order dated 17.7.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi cancelling the settlement. Accordingly these two writ petitions have got no merit and they are dismissed.