Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 36 (JHR)

Sarojini Devi v. State of Bihar

2012-01-05

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
JUDGMENT BY COURT: The Claim of the petitioner is that since the authority has held that the petitioner did not hold any surplus land, her land acquired by the respondents and subsequently distributed to the private respondents be returned to the petitioner. 2. It has been submitted that in the earlier order, the revenue authorities had illegally declared the said land of the petitioner as surplus without taking into consideration the previous transfer and other aspects. The said order was challenged by filing writ petition, being CWJC No.1453 of 1981(R). The writ petition was allowed and the orders of the revenue authorities were quashed. The case was remitted to the concerned court of Land Reforms Deputy Collector for a fresh decision. By order dated 30th November, 1990, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms specifically held that the petitioner had no surplus land. 3. The said order was, subsequently, approved by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, by his order dated 23rd October, 1992. The Additional Collector in view thereof had also repealed the allotment of the land to the private respondents, directing for allotment of other lands to them. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the said declaration that the petitioner did not hold any surplus land and also the order of the Additional Collector, repealing the said allotment in favour of the private respondents, possession of the land has not been given to the petitioner till date. 5. Learned J.C. to G.P.II contested the writ petition and submitted that the instant writ petition is frivolous and unnecessary. According to the petitioner, she does not hold any surplus land. The same is also evident from the orders of the revenue authorities, contained in Annexures3 and 4. In view thereof, there was no question of settlement of land in favour of the private respondents. 6. Considering the said legal position, the Additional Collector had already cancelled the settlement and since thereafter the land had been reverted back to the petitioner, no further order or proceeding is required for delivery of land to the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 6. Considering the said legal position, the Additional Collector had already cancelled the settlement and since thereafter the land had been reverted back to the petitioner, no further order or proceeding is required for delivery of land to the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. Since there is clear declaration of the revenue authorities, as would be evident from Annexures 3 and & 4 of the writ petition that the petitioner does not hold any surplus land and also that the Collector has specifically mentioned that there is no meaning of settlement of those lands to the private respondents and that the land reverted back to the petitioner even if the same was ever given to any body. In spite of the said legal order, if any person is not vacating the land, the same gieves rise to a dispute between two private parties. The same cannot be adjudicated upon and decided by this court in writ jurisdiction. 8. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal step for recovery of possession, if the cause is still subsisting.