RIJHAN NAG Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner seeks issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to consider her case in the matter of settlement of 4 katha of land of MS Plot No. 886, Ward No. 4 at Purlia Road, Ranchi.

(2.) THE petitioners case is that she was the owner of portion of plot No. 58 Khata No. 65 of Mouja Chouri, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi. The Public Works Department, in order to make construction of Potpoto Bridge on Ranchi -Kanke road wanted to acquire 6 decimals of portion of the aforementioned plot No. 58, approached the petitioner for the said purpose. It was represented that if the respondents are allowed to take possession of the land belonging to the petitioner for construction of the aforesaid bridge instead of making payment of compensation, the petitioner will be alleged in exchange of her land an area of 28.71 sf at Purlia Road within the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is contended that the petitioner agreed to offer the land over which the Bridge was constructed. After the said acquisition, the petitioner made an application before the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi for settlement of the aforesaid land instead of claiming compensation. The application was processed by the Circle Officer vide Settlement Case No. 5/R8/85 -86 and a report to that effect was submitted by the Superintending Engineer of P.W.D. for giving the land to the petitioner in exchange of the petitioners land. Accordingly, a proposal for settlement of land was recommended and forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner but in spite of several representations the Deputy Commissioner did not consider the representation nor passed any order.

(3.) IN the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated, inter alia, that the case of the petitioner for settlement of the aforementioned land was considered by the respondents and after due verification the settlement application of the petitioner has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 28.1.2000. It is further stated that the land of the petitioner bearing Plot No. 58 was acquired by P.W.D. and an award for compensation to the petitioner has already been declared. It is stated that neither the land is suitable for settlement nor the petitioner comes under the category of suitable class for land settlement as she is the seniormost officer of the Education Department and comes under the higher income group.