Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1798 (JHR)

Bishwa Nath Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2019-10-22

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2019
JUDGMENT : In pursuance to the order dated 15.10.2019, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent State of Jharkhand in the Court after serving the copy upon the learned counsel for the petitioner. Supplementary counter affidavit has been accepted and taken on record. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents especially the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to stay forthwith the unlawful construction of road on the raiyati land belonging to the petitioner bearing Khata Number 86, Plot No. 1023, area measuring 7.90 acre by the Road Construction Department from Sonahatu to Milan Chowk at Sonahatu Block of district Ranchi. The petitioner has made out specific case as would appear from the order dated 15.10.2019 that without initiating any proceeding required to be initiated under Section 4-h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the land is being utilized for the purpose of construction of National Highway although, as per the Revisional Survey Record of Rights, the land in question has been settled by way of Rent Fixation Case No. 15 of 1948-49. This Court, after considering the aforesaid submission as has been agitated by the learned counsel appearing to the petitioner, has passed the order on 15.10.2019 which reads hereunder as :- “The petitioner has agitated the grievance that the land which belongs to the petitioner has been utilized for construction of road of 24 km. from Sonahatu to Milan Chowk at Sonahatu Block of District Ranchi. The respondents have come out with their stand at paragraph12 of the counter affidavit that the land is recorded as Gair Mazrua Malik in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights but the same has been settled by way of Rent Fixation Case No.15 of 1948-49 and thereafter the name of the petitioner has been entered into Register-II but on enquiry it has been found that the settlement of the land is contrary to the provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, therefore, enquiry has been directed to be conducted and in course thereof, it has been found that the land has illegally been settled. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has put a query with respect to the outcome of the said enquiry to the effect that as to whether any proceeding under Section 4-h of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been initiated over the said land. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that to that effect no averment has been made in the counter affidavit, therefore, he has sought for time for this week. In view thereof, let this case appear on 22.10.2019.” In terms of the said order, supplementary counter affidavit has been filed wherein stand inter alia has been taken that a proceeding under Section 4-h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 being Suspicious Jamabandi Case No. 496/16-17 which is lying pending before the Additional Collector, Ranchi. It has also been stated that the notice has duly been served upon the petitioner but the petitioner has shown apprehension about the said aspect of the matter. Be that as it may, after having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that a proceeding under Section 4-h of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been initiated being Suspicious Jamabandi Case No. 496/16-17 as would appear from Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit, therefore, this Court is of the view that no positive direction can be passed in favour of the petitioner at this stage save and except to direct the petitioner to pursue the proceeding pending before the revenue authority as Suspicious Jamabandi Case No. 496/16-17. If the petitioner has already put in his appearance, he will have liberty to make additional defence and if the petitioner has not put in his appearance, liberty to file detailed reply in his defence in support of his title. The concerned revenue authority will adjudicate upon the issues in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Consequently, I.A. No. 4847 of 2016 filed for intervention as party respondent also stands disposed of.