JUDGMENT : Heard Dr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel-III, for the respondents. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for a direction upon the respondent no. 3 for grant of agricultural land in view of the State Government Circular and order issued vide letter dated 23.03.1963 within the vicinity of Ranchi town in place of the earlier land settled with the petitioner vide settlement order dated 23.12.1985 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to grant the agricultural land of an area of 1.62 acres since the government has failed to give physical possession of the land which was settled in favour of the petitioner. 3. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the petitioner was a serving officer in the Indian Army when the writ application was filed. In terms of the circular dated 23.03.1963 the petitioner had applied to the government for allotting him a piece of agricultural land. In terms of such application and vide Gazette notification published on 28.07.1984 several lands had been acquired including a part of land situated in Khata No. 03, Plot No. 118, Mouza Silwai, and it was settled by the Revenue Department. A Revenue settlement Case No. 7R-VIII/85-86 was initiated and the land situated at Mouza Silwai, Khata No. 3, Plot No. 118 comprising of an area of 1.62 acres was settled in the name of the petitioner on 23.12.1985. Since a part of the land which was settled in favour of the petitioner was occupied by Bihar Steel Pvt. Ltd., illegally a notice was issued by the Circle Officer, Namkum wherein the occupant of the factory was directed to remove the constructed structure within a period of 15 days. The petitioner being a serving officer in the Army was posted at Rajasthan during the relevant period and when he came to Ranchi an application was submitted by him to the Additional Collector, Ranchi for giving him possession of the land which was settled in favour of the petitioner. It has been stated that the Circle Officer, Namkum had initiated a process and after preparing an inventory had given physical possession in presence of witnesses on 31.10.1998. The petitioner had also deposited rent and rent receipts were issued to the petitioner. It has been stated that the Circle Officer, Namkum had initiated a process and after preparing an inventory had given physical possession in presence of witnesses on 31.10.1998. The petitioner had also deposited rent and rent receipts were issued to the petitioner. Some rent receipts were issued to the petitioner on 31.01.1989 and 06.11.1998. The owner of Bihar Steel Products Ltd. which had illegally occupied a part of the land settled in favour of the petitioner had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 128/1998 in which an order of status quo was granted by the concerned court but it has been stated that in spite of the operation of the order of status quo the plaintiff had leased out the land to Lafarge Cement Company. 4. In 2007 the plaintiff had received a notice from the Land Acquisition Department regarding acquisition of land situated at Mouza Silwai, Khata No. 03, Plot No. 118 and a Land Acquisition Case No. 15/02-03 was also started for acquiring the land for the purpose of constructing Namkum Broad-gauge Railway Line. The petitioner had subsequently come to know that some part of the settled land had been acquired by the Government. The petitioner has therefore prayed that since in spite of the settlement which was made by the Revenue Department of 1.62 acres of agricultural land in favour of the petitioner and since the petitioner could not avail of the beneficial schemes of the government on account of the inability of the concerned authorities in handing over physical possession of the land in question to the petitioner he has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to provide an alternative agricultural land within the vicinity of Ranchi town. 5. The respondent no. 7 has filed a counter affidavit in which it has been stated that 0.83 acres of land within the settled land of the petitioner has been acquired for setting up of Railway line and the compensation with respect to the land acquisition proceeding has been paid to the land owners Mosomat Obolabala and Others. 6. During the pendency of the writ application since the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 7 was cryptic and confined itself mainly with respect to the acquisition and the subsequent compensation paid to the owners of the land learned Senior Standing Counsel-III was directed to file a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 6. During the pendency of the writ application since the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 7 was cryptic and confined itself mainly with respect to the acquisition and the subsequent compensation paid to the owners of the land learned Senior Standing Counsel-III was directed to file a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no. 3. In terms of the order dated 17.06.2019 a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3. It has been stated in the said affidavit that after acquisition of the land the compensation was assessed to be an amount of Rs. 8,13,151/-but the same has not been paid to anyone which is contrary to the statement made by the respondent no. 7 in his counter affidavit. It has further been stated that an inspection of the land was made by the Circle Officer, Namkum who had submitted a report to the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi in respect of 1.628 acres of land and the report suggests that in 0.79 acres of land one Mahabir Prasad Chandak is running a ready mix plant. The prayer of the petitioner with respect to providing him with an alternative agricultural land has been denied by the respondent no. 3 by stating that there cannot be any other settlement in respect of an ex-military personnel in terms of the circular dated 21.12.2017. Reference has also been made to the said circular dated 21.12.2017 by stating that the same is applicable when an army personnel dies in operation. It has further been stated that the petitioner has not disclosed as to whether the petitioner has in his possession any landed or immovable property. 7. Dr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the factual aspects of the case would reveal that the petitioner has been deprived by the government in availing of the beneficial scheme as contained in the circular dated 23.03.1963. It has been stated that although in the supplementary counter affidavit reference has been made about circular no. Dr. S.K. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the factual aspects of the case would reveal that the petitioner has been deprived by the government in availing of the beneficial scheme as contained in the circular dated 23.03.1963. It has been stated that although in the supplementary counter affidavit reference has been made about circular no. 6144 dated 21.12.2017 but the said circular would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner primarily on the ground that the petitioner has not made any fresh application under the said circular but has merely prayed for an alternative agricultural land in view of the failure on the part of the government to handover vacant possession of 1.62 acres of land settled in favour of the petitioner. It has been stated that 0.83 acres of land has been acquired for the Railways and so far as the rest 0.79 acres of land is concerned the report of the Circle Officer indicates that the same is in possession of a ready mix plant which is in operation. 8. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel-III, for the respondents has mainly concentrated on the circular no. 6144 dated 21.12.2017 by submitting that the eligibility criteria for being settled with a land would not cover the petitioner as the same is with respect to an army personnel who dies in combat. It has been stated that it was a failure on the part of the petitioner to have availed of the agricultural land allotted to him and after so many decades he has come up before this Court seeking a direction for settling an alternative agricultural land in another place within the vicinity of the town of Ranchi which cannot be by any stretch of imagination be accepted or considered. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, it appears that 1.62 acres of agricultural land at Mouza Silwai was settled with the petitioner in view of the circular of the State government dated 23.03.1963. The petitioner being in active service in the Army was eligible to be considered as he also came within the parameters of the eligibility criteria. However, the eligibility of the petitioner under the 1963 circular has not been disputed nor has the settlement of 1.62 acres of agricultural land in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner being in active service in the Army was eligible to be considered as he also came within the parameters of the eligibility criteria. However, the eligibility of the petitioner under the 1963 circular has not been disputed nor has the settlement of 1.62 acres of agricultural land in favour of the petitioner. The complication arose after the land was settled in favour of the petitioner. The physical possession of the land was never given to the petitioner since the factory of Bihar Steel Products Limited was existing in a part of the settled land. The respondents have stated that Circle Officer, Namkum had prepared an inventory of the factory of Bihar Steel Products Limited and physical possession of the land was handed over to the petitioner which has also been acknowledged by him on 31.10.1988. However, the list of inventory would indicate a large number of materials including permanent structures having not been handed over to the representatives of Bihar Steel Products Limited. In fact the articles at serial no. 1 to 7 had only been handed over. The other structures and materials having not been removed from the plot in question would render the handing over of possession as symbolic. 10. The other aspect of the matter is the acquisition of 0.83 acres of land for setting up of Namkum Broad-gauge line of the Railways. In either of the situations the petitioner has been deprived from his rightful possession. The beneficial purpose for which circular dated 23.03.1963 had come into existence never percolated down to the petitioner as the entire exercise ultimately culminated in a symbolic possession which frustrated the objects and purport of the circular itself. The petitioner had a legitimate expectation in view of the settlement of 1.62 acres of agricultural land in his favour but the same got frustrated on account of the inadequacies of the authorities concerned. The subsequent circular dated 21.12.2017 which has much been harped upon by Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel-III has made ineligible a serving military personnel to be settled with agricultural land. However, the argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel-III is misplaced mainly on the premise that the petitioner is not a new applicant or for that matter his application for settlement of land has not been considered. Atanu Banerjee, learned Senior Standing Counsel-III has made ineligible a serving military personnel to be settled with agricultural land. However, the argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel-III is misplaced mainly on the premise that the petitioner is not a new applicant or for that matter his application for settlement of land has not been considered. The petitioner merely has prayed for an alternative agricultural land and such prayer in the background facts is not at all unjustifiable. It is beyond comprehension as to why the petitioner should be guided by the subsequent circular dated 21.12.2017 and not by the circular dated 23.03.1963. The entire exercise for settlement of 1.62 acres of agricultural land in favour of the petitioner was carried out in terms of the circular dated 23.03.1963. The subsequent circular dated 21.12.2017 has no retrospectivity and would therefore not be a guiding force to the cause of the petitioner. 11. Adverting back to the factual aspects of the case the recent report of the Circle Officer, Namkum indicates that over 0.79 acres of land First Choice Ready Mix Plant is running. Therefore out of a total area of 1.62 acres settled with the petitioner, 0.83 acres have been acquired for the Railways and the rest 0.79 acres has been illegally occupied by a ready mix plant. 12. The synchronized events narrated above would reveal a stark indifference on the part of the respondents to adhere to the circular of the government and the administrative machinery has basically undone the beneficial intention of the circular dated 23.03.1963. The petitioner has therefore made out a case for interference by this Court since it is beyond doubt that the petitioner has been deprived of 1.62 acres of agricultural land which was settled in his favour but the physical possession of which was never handed over to the petitioner. 13. Accordingly this writ application is allowed with a direction to the respondent no. 3 (The Secretary, Land and Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi) to ensure that an alternative agricultural land is provided to the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously. 14. This writ application stands allowed.