Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1308 (JHR)

Gopal Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

2009-09-16

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order Heard the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.1998 passed by Circle Officer, Simdega in Misc. Case No. 1/R-8/1998-99 as contained in Annexure-20, in a proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, initiated against the petitioner, whereby a direction has been given to the petitioner to remove encroachment from public land i.e. from Plot Nos. 764 (Area 80 Decimals), 734 (Area 2 Decimals), 735 (Area 12 Decimals), 736 (Area 6 Decimals), 724 (Area 3 Decimals) and 729 (Area 20 Decimals), totaling 1.23 Acres. 3. The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 8.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega as an appellate authority, as contained in Annexure-21, against the order passed by the Circle Officer, Simdegaby which the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Circle Officer and dismissed the appeal. 4. The whole claim of the petitioner is that two Plots in question i.e. Plot Nos. 724 and 729 were settled with the petitioner and rents were also fixed by the Circle Officer vide Order dated 16.3.1978, as contained in Annexure-5, and the petitioner is paying his rent for those Plots. Such settlements of these two Plots were also confirmed by the Additional Collector vide Order as contained in Annexure-8. 5. Further claim of the petitioner is that Plot No. 734 (Area 2 Decimals), Plot No. 735 (Area 12 Decimals) and Plot No. 736 (Area 20 Decimals), were settled and subsequently confirmed by the Additional Collector on 12.12.1997 vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. So far Plot No. 764 is concerned, the petitioner claims that in a judgment dated 14.1.1983 in Complaint Case No. 6/1992, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, not only the petitioner was acquitted from the charges under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code but the Judicial Magistrate also affirmed his possession over the said Plot and in this manner, the petitioner claims by holding that he is the rightful owner of the afore" said Plots. According to the petitioner, lands of those Plots are not public land and, therefore, the Circle Officer has illegally initiated a proceedings under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act and has directed to remove the alleged encroachment. The order of the appellate authority i.e. of the Deputy Commissioner has also been challenged on the ground that without application of his mind, he has dismissed the appeal. 6. The order of the appellate authority i.e. of the Deputy Commissioner has also been challenged on the ground that without application of his mind, he has dismissed the appeal. 6. From the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as documents annexed thereto, it appears that according to regulations, the whole Plot in question referred to above fall within Thana No. 117 of Village-Saldega in the District of Simdega and by Notification dated 20.12.1971, as contained in Annexure-B, the Government of Bihar, declared the lands falling within Thana No. 117 of Village-Saldega to be within Simdega Notified Area Committee. It is said that under the Bihar Khas Mahal Manual, 1953, a land falling within the Notified Area Committee can only be leased out and cannot be settled and since the Plots in question were falling within the Notified Area Committee and, therefore, by order dated 6.7.1998, in Case No. 10/R-15/89-90, the. Additional Collector, Gumla rightly cancelled the settlement made in favour of the petitioner with respect to Plot Nos. 734, 735 and 736 on the ground that the said Plots were Gair Mazarua Malik land and it was within Simdega Notified Area Committee and as such, those lands could not have been settled with any particular person under the law. 7. According to respondents, the land falling within the Notified Area Committee, cannot be made Korkar and as per Section 64 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, Kotkar land can be settled only with the landless labourer or cultivators of the same village or contingent villages whereas, the petitioner is a occupancy raiyat of Village Rawani and he is a lawyer by profession. 8. In the impugned orders, it has been held that by suppressing the fact that the land in question fell within the Notified Area Committee, but the petitioner succeeded in getting the land settled in his, favour but such illegal settlement was subsequently cancelled by the authorities competent to cancel the same. 9. Considering the cases of the respective parties and the arguments advanced on their behalf, I find that apparently from Annexure-B of the counter affidavit appears that the Plots in question fell within the Simdega Notified Area Committee and as such, those lands could not have been settled in favour of any particular person including the petitioner by the Circle Officer or by the LRDC. 10. 10. I do not see any illegally or irregularity in the impugned orders. Accordingly, having found no merits, this writ petition is dismissed.