Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1456 (JHR)

Ashma Bewa v. State of Jharkhand

2015-11-23

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order : Aggrieved by order dated 10.04.2013 in Appeal No. 3 of 2005, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioners are legal heirs and successors of Sirajuddin Sheikh and Tafizuddin Sheikh who purchased a piece of land from Smt. Labannamayee Devi through registered sale deed dated 31.10.1960. The land in question is comprised in plot no. 1072, holding no. 504 appertaining to J.B. No. 366 of mouza-Rahaspur. The petitioners claimed that the said land is entered in Register-II in their name and they are paying rent for the said pokhar plot. On the application of respondent no. 4 for Basgit Parcha of two katha in Pokhar Plot No. 1072, the Halka Karamchari and Circle Officer submitted report describing the respondent no. 4 as privileged person. It is pleaded that though, the land in question was settled in favour of the petitioners by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, Basgit Parcha was issued in favour of the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 25.02.1997. The said order was challenged by the petitioners by filing petition under Section 21 of the Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 which has been registered as RMP No. 06 of 199899. The Deputy Commissioner setaside the order dated 25.02.1997 and remanded the case for fresh enquiry. After remand also, the respondent-Circle Officer issued Basgit Parcha in the name of the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 28.07.2004 and the appeal preferred by the petitioners vide RMA Case No. 03 of 2005 has also been dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Mr. D.K. Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 4 is not a landless person. The Circle Officer in his order dated 28.07.2004 records that the respondent no. 4 would get 10 kathas of land in his ancestral property still, the Circle Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner has held the respondent no. 4 as landless person. It is further contended that the specific plea raised by the petitioners before the appellate authority in RMP Case No. 6 of 1998-99 has, on remand, not been examined by the Circle Officer. 4. I find that in the proceeding of RMP Case No. 6 of 1998-99 the petitioners raised a plea that the respondent no. 4 as landless person. It is further contended that the specific plea raised by the petitioners before the appellate authority in RMP Case No. 6 of 1998-99 has, on remand, not been examined by the Circle Officer. 4. I find that in the proceeding of RMP Case No. 6 of 1998-99 the petitioners raised a plea that the respondent no. 4 possesses a Tank (Pokhar) of about 6 bighas, vacant vastu land of about 9 kathas and six bighas agricultural land jointly with his brother Alamgir Sheikh. In the proceeding before the Circle Officer the enquiry report of the Revenue Karamchari disclosed that the respondent no. 4 has constructed a house over 1½ kathas land in Dag No. 1072 mouza-Rahaspur and he does not possess any other piece of land. The petitioners did not produced any evidence to support their plea that the respondent no. 4 possesses any other piece of land. It has come on record that the land in Dag No. 1072 within mouza Rahaspur was voluntarily given to the respondent no. 4 who after constructing house has been residing over there. The respondent no. 4 claimed that he has been ousted by his father from his property. The Circle Officer verified the revenue register and opined that in the property of his grand father the respondent no. 4 may get about 10 kathas of land however, it was not established by the petitioners that the respondent no. 4 has infact, received the said share in the property owned by his grand father. The Circle Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner has recorded a finding that the respondent no. 4 falls within the definition of landless person. Considering the above facts, I find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 10.04.2013 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.