Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 9 (JHR)

Md. Abdul Fatah v. The State Of Jharkhand

2017-01-03

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2017
ORDER Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the intervenor- applicant in I.A. No. 7415 of 2016. 2. Petitioner has made following prayer :- "(A) For issuance of direction to the respondents No. 4, (Khas Mahal Officer) to consider the matter of settlement of the landed property as details described herein below. (B) For further issuance of direction to the concerned respondents for appreciating that Khas Mahal Land No. 580 plot no. 52/a measuring about 2 may be settled in favour of the petitioner because earlier, one small portion of land of plot no. 51 was already steeled to him in terms of proceeding initiated in this context i.e. 4/98/99 and the same is required to him for individual, road, proper light and ventilation. (C) For further consideration and issuance of appropriate direction to the concerned Respondents, that in this regard the petitioner has made application on 13.05.2003 for settlement of the said small piece of land against the same the petitioner is ready to pay the said amount, report was also submitted in his favour in this context by the conern authority in terms of Rule 170 A and 171 B, evident from the report dated 29.05.2003, even though the same is lying pending before them. (D) For further considering and directing the concern respondent to act in terms of observation made by the Res Noon 06.04.2001, (Deputy Commissioner) Daltonganj, (Medni Naga) in the matter of Misc Case No. 4/98-99. (E) For further issuance of direction for restraining the respondent, so that they should not to take otherwise action in terms of proceeding Misc. Case No. 01/2014-15, started otherwise". 3. Though petitioner claims to be son of the original lease holder i.e. S.K. Samsuddin in respect of plot no. 51 under khata no. 580 of Harijan Tola (Bhati Tola) said to be a Khas Mahal land having holding number 704 situate at Bhati Muhala, Daltonganj but the copy of the original lease deed has not been brought on record. Petitioner has however sought to support his prayer and averments made in the writ petition on the basis of rent receipts of holding tax, annexed as Annexure- A and B to the supplementary affidavit. According to him, his father submitted application for renewal of lease on 10.12.1990, which is pending before the Khas Mahal Officer, Daltonganj. Petitioner has however sought to support his prayer and averments made in the writ petition on the basis of rent receipts of holding tax, annexed as Annexure- A and B to the supplementary affidavit. According to him, his father submitted application for renewal of lease on 10.12.1990, which is pending before the Khas Mahal Officer, Daltonganj. Renewal of lease of the said piece of land, however does not appear to have been granted till date. 4. On the other hand there appears to be miscellaneous proceedings initiated being case no. 1/2014-15 before the Khas Mahal Officer, Palamau. The Intervenor- Applicant has also annexed the order sheet of the miscellaneous case and sought to convey on the basis of Annexure-9 dated 1.08.2016 bearing letter no. 111 of the same Officer, Respondent no.3 that encroachment of land has been found during course of inspection in respect of the same misc. case no. 1/2014-15 where both the petitioner as well as intervenor are also parties. 5. While learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to convey that the allegation of encroachment are unfounded, learned counsel for the intervenor applicant has tried to substantiate his locus standi on the basis of the proceedings in misc. case no. 1/2014-15 relating to the alleged encroachment by the petitioner over certain pieces of land. In the aforesaid background of facts, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayer of the petitioner essentially is to direct the Respondent authorities to take a decision on the prayer for settlement of adjacent piece of land bearing plot no. 52/a measuring 2 feet under the same khata no. 580 of the Khas Mahal land in respect of which proceedings were initiated in 1999 itself. 6. Reference to the aforesaid facts which appear to be relevant for consideration of the plea of the rival parties have been consciously made in the foregoing paragraphs as they lead to the opinion that neither the main plea of the petitioner for settlement of the adjacent piece of land is ripe for this Court to make any comment thereupon, nor are the proceedings in misc. case no. 1/2014-15 inter se between the parties to be commented upon. The statutory authorities are required to act in accordance with law in case of any encroachment of a Government or Khas Mahal land against which aggrieved person may have any remedy before appropriate forum/statutory appellate authority. case no. 1/2014-15 inter se between the parties to be commented upon. The statutory authorities are required to act in accordance with law in case of any encroachment of a Government or Khas Mahal land against which aggrieved person may have any remedy before appropriate forum/statutory appellate authority. Petitioner is equally at liberty to approach the competent authority for settlement or renewal of any Khas Mahal land for which no indulgence is required to be shown in the present state of pleadings. 7. Petitioner for reason best known to him has not even enclosed the copy of the original lease deed to substantiate his plea. Therefore, instant writ petition appears to be misconceived. No interference is required in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. I.A. No. 7415 of 2016 also stands disposed of.