AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
18/28.07.2026 Both these writ petitions are arising out of the same impugned order and that is why, both these writ petitions have been heard together with consent of the parties.
Learned counsel appearing for the State in respective writ petitions submit that supplementary counter affidavit is ready, however, it has not been filed in the Registry as the matter is on the board.
In view of such submission, the said supplementary counter affidavit is taken on record.
In W.P.(C) No.1313 of 2014, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 24.01.2014 passed by respondent no.2 in Misc. Case No.12 of 1998-99 (T.R. No.193 R-15 of 2000-01), whereby, the settlement of the lands in favour of the petitioners has been declared to be void, ab initio and has been cancelled with a direction upon respondent no.5 to take possession of the lands and to make necessary correction in the revenue records as also for quashing the notice dated 18.02.2014 issued by respondent no.4 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises by 05.03.2014.
In W.P.(C) No.1320 of 2014, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 24.01.2014 passed by respondent no.2 in Misc. Case No.22 of 1999-2000 and analogous cases, whereby, the settlement of the lands in favour of the petitioners has been declared to be void, ab initio and has been cancelled with a direction upon respondent no.5 to take possession of the lands and to make necessary correction in the revenue records as also for quashing the notice dated 18.02.2014 issued by respondent no.4 directing the petitioners to vacate the premises by 05.03.2014.
Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1313 of 2014 are the members of Scheduled Castes and the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1320 of 2014 are the members of Scheduled Tribes. He further submits that the petitioners in both the cases were allotted R.S. Plot No.464 under R.S. Khata No.246 under Mouza- Kanke in terms of the settlement by the State Government and that land is Kaisere Hind land and that has been made pursuant to the circular of the Government with regard to settlement of the lands with the members of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class. He then submits that different circulars have been annexed in the writ petitions at Annexures- 1 and 2. He next submits that in light of the said circulars, the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi on 09.09.1991 settled a piece of land measuring an area of 2.50 acres being portion of R.S. Plot No.464 under Khata No.246 of Mouza Kanke to four sons of Late Rarmeshwar Prasad including the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1313 of 2014 contained in Annexure-3. He also submits that the then Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi under different circulars on different dates, settled pieces of lands having different area being portion of R.S. Plot No.464 under Khata No.246 of Mouza Kanke to the ancestors of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1320 of 2014, contained in Annexures-3, 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3 respectively. He further submits that the petitioners are still in possession and they are residing by way of constructing the house on the said land, which was settled by the Government and they are also paying rent to the Government by way of Annexure-4. He next submits that it is the second round of litigation. Earlier the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by common order dated 17.07.2001 in Case No.7 of 1998 and analogous cases has cancelled the settlement on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer has got no power, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.5548 of 2001 and W.P.(C) No.6737 of 2002 and the learned Single Judge of this Court by a common judgment dated 07.01.2004 has been pleased to dismiss the writ petitions and against that judgment, the petitioners have preferred L.P.A. No.139 of 2004 and L.P.A. No.186 of 2004 and the Division Bench of this Court has allowed the said L.P.As. and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to take fresh decision vide judgment dated 22.12.2004. He also submits that now new ground has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the case of the petitioners has been rejected and cancellation order has been passed. He submits that the settlement is there and the nature of land is Kaisere Hind. He then submits that relying on circular to the effect that salami was not paid and the land is proposed to be utilized for public purpose, the settlement made to the petitioners has been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which is not in accordance with law. He also submits that if the land is being taken back by the Government, in that case the petitioners are required to be compensated as the construction has been made on the said land. He next submits that these aspects of the matter have not been considered by the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order. He also submits that the circular of the year 1979 on which the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has relied, which was superseded by two circulars of the years 1981 and 1982, in which, it has been disclosed that no salami is required for settlement as the land was earlier settled to the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be quashed.
Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai and Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State in respective writ petitions submit that the Deputy Commissioner after considering entire aspects of the matter, has passed the order and there is no illegality in the impugned order. They further submit that in the supplementary counter affidavit, the circular of the year 1979 has been annexed at Annexure-A, wherein, it has been disclosed that in the semi urban area, salami is required to be paid. They submit that in view of that circular, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the order. They next submit that the land in question is for public utility. On these grounds, they submit that the writ petitions may kindly be dismissed.
In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the records and finds that the land has been settled in favour of the petitioners in terms of the circular as noted in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have also paid rent and rent receipts are also brought on record in both the writ petitions and that has been done after creating jamabandi in favour of the petitioners. It has been pointed out that the petitioners have constructed house on the said land and they are residing there and they are still in possession. The impugned order is dated 24.01.2014 and it has been pointed out that the petitioners are in possession till date.
The Division Bench of this Court while deciding L.P.A. No. 139 of 2004 and L.P.A. No.186 of 2004 held as under in paragraphs 6 and 7:
“6.From perusal of the records it transpires that in reply to the notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner for cancellation of jamabandi the petitioners-appellants filed detailed show cause. A copy of the show cause filed by the petitioners has been annexed as Annexure 8 to the instant appeals. The case of the petitioners-appellants in the show cause was that their predecessor-in- interest were exercising possession over the land by constructing residential houses and by making the land cultivable. It was their specific case that they are the members of scheduled caste being by caste, Dusadh, and they applied for settlement of the said land before the Circle Officer, Kanke Anchal, Ranchi on the basis of their long and continuous possession. It was stated that a detailed enquiry and Inspection was made at the Anchal level and after finding that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners-appellants were in possession of the land by constructing houses and by making the land cultivable, the Settlement Proceeding was forwarded to the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi who also, after due enquiry, consented for settlement in favour of the opposite parties [petitioners-appellants] and, thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi finally made settlement of the land in favour of Sudhir Kumar and his three brothers.
7.The aforesaid facts find support from the order of the Settlement Case passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi in Settlement Case No. 33R 8(5) of 1990-91. A copy of the entire ordersheet of the said Settlement Case has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the instant appeals. In the ordersheet it is mentioned that the applicants are the members of scheduled caste being by caste Harijans and Dusadh and they had been coming in possession of the land by making residential house also. There is no dispute that after the Constitution came into force the kaisare-hind land in possession of the State Government became Government land and such land can be settled only by the State Government. In this respect various circulars and departmental letters were issued like letter no. 6963 dated 25.9.1953 and letter nos. 388 dated 21/22-5-1954 by which power was delegated to the Sub-Divisional Officer for settlement of such land to the members of scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and backward classes. There are other circulars also time to time issued empowering the Sub-Divisional Officer to make settlement of Government lands to the members of scheduled caste, schedule tribes and backward classes. In the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner these facts have not at all been considered and the impugned order of settlement has been cancelled merely by holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer is not the competent authority to settle kaisare hind land. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has not gone into these aspects of the matter In our opinion, therefore, it is a fit case where the entire matter needs reconsideration by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.”
Earlier the cancellation was made by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not having power to settle the land, however, in light of the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid L.P.As., that has been overruled by the Division Bench of this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
It transpires that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on the new ground has further cancelled the settlement of the petitioners and has not taken into consideration that the petitioners are in possession since last 35 years and they have constructed the house on the said land. If the said land is required to be used for the public purpose, the petitioners are required to be suitably compensated for construction of the house. These aspect of the matter are missing in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
Even no proposal in terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi of allotting or settle new land has been brought on record by the learned counsel appearing for the State.
In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 24.01.2014 passed by respondent no.2 and the notice dated 18.02.2014 issued by respondent no.4 which is the subject-matter in both the writ petitions, so far as the petitioners are concerned, is hereby quashed. The matter is further remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to re-examine the case of the petitioners in light of the observation made herein above including the compensation aspect as to whether genuinely the land in question is required to be used for public purpose as it has been pointed that the petitioners are in possession till date.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed in above terms and disposed of.
Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.