Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 21 (JHR)

Rampati Ram v. State of Jharkhand

2013-01-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
ORDER By the Court.- Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had approached this Court for directing the respondents to take final decision for settlement of Area 6 decimals of Plot No. 877 under khata No. 123 of village Namkum on the ground that the respondents had not arrived at any final decision on his application for settlement in respect of which even the Land Settlement Case No.2 R-VIII/1987-88 was initiated. 3. The petitioner claims himself to be a landless scheduled caste person who retired as Hawaldar from the care of single under the Arms Forces in the year 1992 as per the discharge certificate which is annexed as Annexure-1. 4. According to the petitioner under the policy of the State of Bihar contained in resolution dated 20.11.1963. He was entitled to settlement of at least 12.5 decimals of land being a landless person belonging to scheduled caste. Accordingly, he made an application for settlement of the aforesaid portion of land Area 6 decimals of Plot No. 877 under khata No. 123 of village Namkum, which was registered as Sainik Bhumi Bandobasti Case No. 2-RVIII/1987-88 in the Court of Deputy Collector, Incharge, Land Reforms, Sadar at Ranchi. According to the petitioner, a report was submitted by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi on 11.12.1992 that the lands can be settled with the petitioner in khas mahal for a period of 30 years at a salami of Rs. 1000/- per decimal. However, respondents did not act upon the said application of the petitioner and report and no final decision has been taken in the Land Settlement Case. He has, therefore, compelled to approach this Court for the aforesaid relief. 5. The respondents, through their counter-affidavit have stated that as per the instructions contained in Memo No.1683/Rev. dated 24.08.1990 issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, there is provision for settlement of Government land of 12.5 decimals for residential purposes with the retired landless and homeless military personnel in the rural area only but the petitioner prayed for settlement of a portion of land in mouza-Namkum which comes under the municipal area and the said land cannot be settled with the writ petitioner. 6. 6. The petitioner has, however, in his supplementary-affidavit relied upon another circular dated 30.03.1979 whereunder if the settlement sought for by landless SC/ST persons in the Municipal Area then such settlement can be done on the market rate and no concession can be granted. 7. Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioner is an ex-army man, who retired in the year 1992 and he has earlier made an application for settlement of land as ex-army man and as a landless person under the policy and circular prevalent at the relevant point of time on the basis of which the Land Settlement Case No. 2 R-VIII/1987-88 was initiated and certain inquiries were also made, but no final decision has been taken in Land Settlement Case No.2 R-VIII/1987-88. Petitioner is willing to pay the market price of the land belonging under the khas mahal area in case the respondents allow settlement in his favour for which he has relied upon the circular of the year 1979. In these circumstances, however without expressing anything on the merit of the case the petitioner is once again directed to approach the office of Additional Collector, Ranchi for redressal of his grievances seeking settlement of land as per the submission of the petitioner. The said settlement case being Land Settlement Case No. 2 RVIII/1987-88 has not yet been disposed of either way. 8. In the circumstances, the respondent No.2, Additional Collector, Ranchi shall consider the same 'as per the prevalent laws, circulars and the resolution applicable to such matter of ex-army man and landless person and take a decision within a period of 16 weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. 9. It is, however, made clear that nothing observed hereinabove shall be taken to be comment upon the must of the case of the parties. 10. Accordingly, this writ petitions is disposed of. Petition disposed of