WIHAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The twelve Petitioners have come to this Court making a prayer for cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the private Respondents, who are 269 in numbers. The lands in question appertains to Khata No. 21, Plot No. 43 of Village-Rampur Ghoghar measuring 387.47 acres. The lands which have been settled to the Petitioners and others like him, measures 120 decimals only.

(2.) The case of the Petitioners is that they were settled the lands by the ex-landlord and later on vesting of the lands in the State of Bihar, the lands were settled by registered deeds apparent from Volume-IX 22 of 1947 in favour of some of the settlees. 120 persons are affected by the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Revenue, the Additional Collector and the Collector, Patna as contained in Annexure-5 by which the settlements made in favour of the Petitioners and others were cancelled on the basis of the fact that the authorities suspected the manner in which the settlements were made, and settlements of the lands were made in favour of the private Respondents. The lands have been described as GAIR MAZARUA KHESRE HIND (alluvial land).

(3.) Annexure-1 is the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Danapur jointly passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Danapur. In the said order, it appears that there was a recommendation for reopening the case with respect to the cancellation of jamabandi by initiating separate cases against each of the settlees and there was also a recommendation for issuing notices to them. It is accepted and admitted by both, the private Respondents and the State, that separate cases were not initiated for the purposes of cancelling the jamabandi, nor has the State issued notices to all the affected persons, rather the State through a public announcement system, announced that the proceeding would take place on 19.6.2006. It is also admitted that on 19.6.2006, out of the 115 persons who purportedly appeared with their documents, 60 of the names mentioned in the order were dead persons, thereby the Petitioners have tried to establish before this Court, that in fact, there was no Camp Court as alleged or even if there was a Camp Court, it was just a formal proceeding, conducted without application of mind. On the other hand, the private Respondents and the State have taken a stand that the heirs of the dead persons appeared before the authorities.