Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 37 (PAT)

Naresh Kumar Pandit v. State of Bihar

2005-01-12

body2005
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Abbas Haider, counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the letter no.1/M dated 16.2.2004, issued by the Anchal Adhikari, Bajapatti whereby the settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioner in Settlement Case No. 5/1999-2000 has been cancelled. Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 14.1.2004 by which the recommendation for cancellation has been accepted without issuing any notice to show cause to the petitioner, who is the settlee of the land appertaining to Khata no. 366, Plot No. 123 measuring an area of 40 decimals within the Anchal of Bajapatti. 3. The petitioner is a member of Indian Army and he filed an application for settlement of some land in his favour. On receiving the application of the petitioner, the Circle Officer after proper inspection made a recommendation to the S.D.O. for settlement of aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner. On the recommendation of the Circle Officer, the S.D.O. by order dated 31.8.2001 settled the land in favour of the petitioner. The nature of the land as per the enquiry report was ditch Gairmajarua Khas and it was also stated that the nature of the land has changed, it has become cultivable. Thereafter the settlement purcha was issued and petitioner was also given possession of the land which was mutated in the name of the petitioner and the rent receipts were also being granted to the petitioner. Subsequently by the impugned order dated 16.2.2004 and 14.1.2004 the settlement has been cancelled in cancellation settlement case no. 5 of 1999 that the settled land of Khata no. 366 Plot No. 1123 which is not supposed to be settled with him. It has been submitted that in the settlement cancellation case, no notice was issued to the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was given to him though he is an interested person. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State. In paragraph-7 and 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that since it was a government land, there was no need or necessity for Issuing any notice to the petitioner for cancellation of jambandi. 5. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State. In paragraph-7 and 8 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that since it was a government land, there was no need or necessity for Issuing any notice to the petitioner for cancellation of jambandi. 5. Considering the counter affidavit filed by the State that the cancellation has been done without giving any notice to the petitioner, the impugned orders are patently illegal and without jurisdiction. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the orders dated 16.2.2004 contained in letter no. 1/M as well as the recommendation for cancellation dated 14.1.2004 are hereby quashed. So far cancellation of settlement is concerned, if any cancellation proceeding is initiated the petitioner must be given an opportunity before passing any order and the cancellation proceeding must be decided in accordance with law. This application is accordingly allowed.