Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 986 (JHR)

Abid Ali v. State of Jharkhand

2012-07-16

P.P.BHATT

body2012
ORDER By the Court.--The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 10.5.2011, passed in Misc. Case No.48/2010-11, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioner asking the Circle Officer to issue rent receipts has been rejected on the ground that the LPA is pending before this Hon'ble Coprt. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent-State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's land is not included in the forest land and the plot bearing No. 884 khata No. 153 at measuring about 2 (two) acres is outside the forest area, which has he demarcated as 36.9 acres forest land and, therefore, the authority failed to appreciate this material aspect and thereby committed an error in rejecting the application submitted by the present petitioner. 4. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the land in question is forest land and, therefore, the authority concerned has taken the correct view while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. It is further submitted that since the subject matter is sub-judice before this Hon'ble Court in L.P.A. filed by the State against, the order passed by the learned single Judge of the Court whereby the order passed by the Circle Officer, Kanke is in respect of the land in question is set aside. Therefor according to counsel for the respondent the authority concerned has not committed any error while passing the said order. 5. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of impugned order and the other papers produced al0ng with petition, it transpires that the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that the L.P.A. arising out of W.P.(C) No. 4868 of 2007 is pending before this Hon'ble Court but while deciding the application filed by the present petitioner, the factual position with regard to location of the land in question is required to be considered by the authority concerned. On perusal of para-6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it appears that the forest department has informed that the land of Mouza Barhu P.S. No. 25, Plot Nos. 674 and 884 total area 36.98 acres come under reserved forest land vide notification No. 22 CPF 10 16.9-52 Rdt dated 2.1.1953. On perusal of para-6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it appears that the forest department has informed that the land of Mouza Barhu P.S. No. 25, Plot Nos. 674 and 884 total area 36.98 acres come under reserved forest land vide notification No. 22 CPF 10 16.9-52 Rdt dated 2.1.1953. Under the circumstances rent receipt in respect of said land is not granted in favour of the petitioner. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner the land of the petitioner is not falling within the area which has been notified under the forest land. Prima facie, it appears that the Circle Officer. Kanke has not made any detailed enquiry and rejected the application on the ground that L.P.A. is pending in respect of subject matter. 6. In view of the aforesaid position it appears that Circle Officer has not properly consider this aspect of the matter and therefore the said order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.5.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.48 of 2010-11 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned for taking a fresh decision. Before taking any decision, the Circle Officer shall give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and petitioner shall also satisfy the Circle Officer about the .position/location of his land and more particularly as to whether the land in question is outside the forest area. The petitioner shall apply to the Circle Officer afresh along with copy of this order within two weeks from the date of this order and the Circle Officer Kanke will deal with arid decide the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the application that may be filed by the petitioner. 7. The present petitioner will have to satisfy the authority as to how his case is distinct and factually different from the subject matter of the L.P.A. which is pending before this Court and outcome of the L.P.A. is not going to affect his case. 8. This application is allowed accordingly. Application allowed.