DHAJJU RAJAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The petitioner being a landless person had made an application to the authority for settling 11 decimals of land, which he alleged was Gair mazarua Aam land. His application was sent by the competent authority for enquiry and having received the report settlement was ordered to be made in his favour and parcha was issued in his favour for the said 11 decimals of land. Husband of private-respondent no. 8 claimed that land to be raiyati land and filed a writ petition before this court being C.W.J.C. No. 7265/1989. During the pendency of the writ petition, he died and was substituted by his wife, the present respondent no. 8. This court allowed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 11.1.2000 holding that from revisional survey and khatian it appeared that that writ petitioner (respondent no. 8 herein) was recorded as landholder of the land, in question, which was settled to the present petitioner (respondent no. 5 therein) showing it to be vacant land. This was found to be impermissible and as such the order of settlement in favour of petitioner (respondent no. 5 therein) was set aside.

(3.) The matter was then taken up by L.P.A. Court being L.P.A. No. 155/2000. The said appeal was disposed of by judgment, order and direction dated 4.1.2001 by a Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not require interference. Thus the order of learned Single Judge was affirmed but the order of the Division Bench did not stop there. It, however, noted that there was controversy with regard to the nature of land for which settlement had been made. The appellant (respondent no. 5 in the first writ petition) claimed yet to be Gair mazarua Aam and the writ petitioner therein claimed to be a myall. The Division Bench left the authority to consider the prayer of the appellant (respondent no. 5 therein) with regard to settlement of.land taking into consideration the stands taken by the two parties as to their right and nature 'of land. This part of the judgment is a direction to the authority to reconsider the entire matter taking into consideration the stands of both the sides. Admittedly, at that point of time under the authority of settlement and parcha, the petitioner had been on that land and built his hut. There was no direction either by the writ court or L.P.A. court to summarily evict the present petitioner.