AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.1998 passed by Circle Officer, Simdega in Misc. Case No, 1/R-8/1998 - 99 as contained in Annexure 20, in a proceeding under the Bihar Public Encroachment Act, initialed against petitioner, whereby a direction n has peen given to the petitioner to remove encroachment from public land i.e. ham Plot Nos. 764 (Area 80 Decimal), 734 (Area 2 Decimal). 735 (Area 12 Decimal), 736 (Area 6 Decimal), 724 (Area 3 Decimal) and 729 (Area 20 pecimal), totaling 1.23 Acres.
The petitioner has further challenged the order dated 08.12.2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Simdega as an appellate authority, as captained in Annexufe-21, against the order passed by the Circle Officer, Simdega by which the; Deputy Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Circle Officer and dismissed the appeal.
The whole claim of the petitioner is that two Plots in question i.e. Plot Nos. 724 and 729 were settled with the petitioner and rents were also fixed by the Circle Officer vide Order doted 16.03.1978, as contained in Annexure-5, and the petitioner is paying his rent for those Plots. Such settlements of these two Plots were also confirmed by the Additional Collector vide Order as contained in Annexure-8.
Further claim of the petitioner is that Plot No. 734 (Area 2 Decimal), Plot No. 735 (Area 12 Decimals) and Plot No. 736 (Area 20 Decimals), were settled and subsequently complaint by the Additional Collector on (2.12.1997 vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. So far Plot Nos. 764 is concerned, the petitioner claims that in a Judgment abated 14.01.1983 in Complain Case No. 6/1992, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, not only the petitioner was acquitted from, the charges under Sections 447 of the Indian Penal Code but the Judicial Magistrate also affirmed his possesion over the said plot and in this manner, the petitioner claims by holding that he is the rightful owner of the aforesaid Plots. According to the pawner, lands of those Plots ore not public land and, therefore, the Circle Officer has illegally initiated a proceedings under the Bihar Public Lend Encroachment Act and has directed to remove the alleged encroachment. The order of the appellate authority i.e. of the Deputy Commissioner has also been challenged on the ground that without application of his mind, he has dismissed the appeal.
From the averments made in the counter affidavit as well as documents annexed thereto, it appears that according to regulations, the whole Plot in question referred to above fall within Thana No. 117 of village - Saldega in the District of Simdega and by Notification dated 20.12.1971, as contained in Annexure-B, the Government of Bihar, declared the lands falling within Tuna No. 117 of village-Saldega to be within Simdega Notified Area Committee. It is said that under the Bihar Khas Mahal Manual 1953, a land falling within the Notified Area Committee can only be leased out and cannot be settled and since the plots in question were falling within, the Notified Area Committee and, therefore, by order dated 04 07.1998, in Case NO. 10 R 15/89 - 90, the Additional Collector, Gumla rightly cancelled the settlement made in favour of the petitioner with respect to Plot Nos. 734, 735 and 736 on the ground that the said Plots were Gair Mazarua Malik land, and it was within Simdega Notified, Area Committee and as such, those lands could not have been, settled with any particular person under the law.
According to respondents the and falling with in the Notified area Committee, cannot be made korkar and as per Section 64 of the Chhotanaqpur Tenancy Act, Korkar land can be settled only with the landless labourer or cultivators of the same village or contingent villages whereas, the petitioner is a occupancy raiyat, of village - Rawani and he is a lawyer by profession.
In the impugned orders, it has been held that by suppressing the fact that the land in question fell within the Notified Area Committee, but the petitioner succeeded in gating the land Settled in his favour but such illegal settlement was subsequently cancelled by the authorities competent to cancel the same.
Considering the cases of the respective Parties and the arguments advanced on their behalf, I find that apparently from Annexure-B of the counter affidavit, it appears that the Plots in question fell within the Simdega Notified Area Committed and as such, those lands could not have been settled in favour of any particular person including the petitioner by the Circle Officer or by the LRDC.
I do not see any illegally or irregularity n the impugned orders. Accordingly, having found no merits, this writ petition is dismissed.