MIHIR KUMAR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.3.1984 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Misc. Revision No. 79 of 1983-84 and also the order of the Commissioner of Santhal Parganas dated 20.5.1985 passed in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 105 of 1984-85. Ey the said order dated 22.3.1984 the Deputy Commissioner retrospectively cancelled the settlement of about 3 acres of land in plot No. 63 which was settled with the petitioner by the order of the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner waa confirmed by the Commissioner of the Santhal Parganas by the impugned order dated 20.5.1985.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: - The petitioner made an application to the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar for settlement of 10 acres of waste land in plot No. 63 of village Khijuria, P.S. Muhanpur, District Santhal Parganas for horticultural purposes. The said application was sent by the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Santhal Parganas referred the matter to Government through the Divisional Commissioner of Bhagalpur. The State Government issued instructions that the local authorities were competent to make the proposed settlement with the petitioner. On receipt of this direction from the Government the Sub-divisional Officer, Deoghar started proceeding for settlement of waste land as stated above. The petitioner's further case was that before the settlement the Sub-divisional Officer had called for a report from the Anchal Adhikari through the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Deoghar who after enquiries submitted a report on 26.6.1981 making a recommendation for settlement of 3 acres of land within plot No. 63 with the petitioner. Accordingly, Sub-divisional Officer issued notice to the 16 anna raiyats inviting objections if any. It was alleged that Lakhan Das Sahdeo Das and Dhaneshwar Das of Mauja Khijuria filed objections but after filing objection the objectors never appeared. The Sub-divisional Officer said to have made necessary local enquiry and inspection on 22.5.1982 with Circle Officer, Mohanpur and thereafter passed an order making settlement of 3 acres of land to the petitioner for plot No. 63 which is the disputed land. The petitioner further stated that after the said settlement delivery of possession was made to the petitioner by the Sub- divisional Officer and the petitioner came in possession thereto and his name was mutated in the record of the Anchal Office and the petitioner paid rent to the State of Bihar since 1982. It was further stated that after the settlement and delivery of possession the petitioner reclaimed the entire waste land at his own cost and dug a well for irrigation purposes which was sanctioned by the Block Development Officer and the petitioner was given subsidy for that purpose. The petitioner cons 4ruct a farm house at an expenditure of Rs. 15.000/-. The petitioner's further case was that all on a sudden the petitioner received a notice on 12.3.1984 by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar stating, inter alia, that settlement made by the Sub-divisional Officer of the disputed land was illegal and the Deputy Commissioner proposed to reopen the matter with a view to cancel the settlement. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order cancelled the settlement. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Bhagalpur, which was numbered as Revenue Appeal No. 1 of 1984-85. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur admitted the appeal and stayed further action by an order dated 9.4.1984. The appeal was transferred to the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas and the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas after hearing the parties dismissed the same in terms of an order dated 20.5.1985, copy of the said order is Annexure 2 to the writ-application.

(3.) Mr. R.C. Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently challenged the authority of the Deputy Commissioner in cancelling the settlement inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner neither given any opportunity to the petitioner nor proceeded with the matter in accordance with law. Learned Counsel submitted that when the settlement was made in accordance with law and in a prescribed manner it could not have been cancelled or annulled by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act (hereinafter that Deputy Commissioner did not give any adjournment on the application filed by the petitioner stating that he has filed writ-petition in the High Court which was not taken up because of the vacation of the High Court. Learned Counsel further submitted that there was no provosion under the law for cancellation of settlement retrospectively by the deputy Commissioner.