GADAHAR MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. However no one appears on behalf of the respondents despite their appearance in this Court through their counsel.

(2.) BY this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order as contained in Annexure -3 dated 3.8.1993 passed by respondent no. 2, the Commissioner, Santal Pargana in Revenue Misc. Revision No. 67 of 1991 -92 whereby and where under the learned Divisional Commissioner has set aside the orders passed by the Subdivisional Officer and the Additional Deputy Commissioner as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 approving grant of Patta by the village Pradhan in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) IT appears from Annexures 1 and 2 that Patta prepared by the village head -man for settlement of waste land as claimed by the petitioner was duly approved by the Subdivisional Officer and also by the Additional Deputy Commis -sioner considering the objection filed by respondent no. 5. Thus, it appears that settlement of waste land by way of Patta in a prescribed form was made by the village Pradhan in favour of the petitioner. From Annexure -3, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, it would appear that the Divisional Commissioner held that the petitioner was Bhagina (sister 's son) of village Pradhan and, therefore, the waste land could not have been settled with the relative of the vil -lage Pradhan without prior permission of the Subdivisional Officer or of the Deputy Commissioner, as required under Section 29 of the Act. From the very beginning, it was objected by respondent no. 5 that the petitioner was Bhagina (sister 's son) of village Pradhan who recommended for settlement of the waste land to the authority under the Act.