POONAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ application the petitioner, who is the sole daughter of an ex -military personnel, has challenged the order of the district authorities by which it is directed that no rent should be accepted from her and no enquiry, she is informed that the Collector of the district had passed an order in 1989 virtually cancelling the settlement made in favour of her father in the year, 1964 as an ex -military personnel. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the State and rejoinder thereto has also been filed. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Advocate General III Shri Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate on behalf of the State and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) FATHER of the petitioner, namely, Ram Dalip Singh was ex military personnel. In 1963, the State Government, pursuant to initiative of the Central Government, took a decision to make settlements of land upto five acres for agricultural purposes to ex -military personnel or military personnel killed in action and such other military personnel category. The decision was also taken to settle an area not exceeding 12.5 decimals of land for residential purposes to military personnel or their families who were homeless in addition to the agricultural iand aforesaid. Accordingly, a circular was issued by the State Government, as contained in its letter No. A/GM -1 -0 -1/63 -1946R, dated 23.3.1963. The said circular has been annexed as Annexure -F to the supplementary counter affidavit of the State. In that circular, it was stated that the "district officers" are to make settlements at the earliest and inform the Government as the initial target of 10 thousand such families was to be met. It appears, it is accordingly pursuant to the said circular, the petitioner 'slate father, who was Havildar Clerk in the Indian Army, made an application for settlement of agricultural land to the Block Development Officer, Mohiuddin -nagar. The Block Development Officer called for a report of the land in question and ultimately being satisfied by order dated 9.8.1964 made the settlement in favour of the petitioner 'slate father in respect of land of about one acre and ten decimals. Thereafter, petitioner 'sfather name was mutated, Jamabandi created and rent was accepted regularly year after year for over three decades. Recently after the father 'sdeath when petitioner, who was the only child of her father, went to deposit rent it was not accepted. Enquiries revealed that by some order passed in 1989, the Collector had cancelled the Jamabandi thereby virtually cancelling the settlement. This brought the petitioner to this Court and the petitioner has also asserted that she has no knowledge of any proceeding with regard to the said cancellation nor was the said order of cancellation passed after notice either to her father or to her.

(3.) A reference to the said letter would show two things. Firstly it is not a circular circulated to all officials in the State. Secondly, it is mere reply to a query made from district of Saran (not the district with which we are concerned) and a reference to the same would also show that all it says is with reference to the departmental letter dated 23rd March, 1963 (Annexure -F), the Collector of the district is competent to make settlements of land with military personnel. It does not say that all other officers are incompetent or that the Collector of the district is alone competent. In my view, the first letter by which the right to receive settlement was created being the letter dated 23rd of March, 1963 (Annexure -F to the supplementary counter affidavit) the expression used was "district officers". It was not the Collector of the district. In the Khas Mahal Manual, there are large number of circulars and directives issued by the State Government in respect of settlement of land which clearly shows that district officers are a larger group of officers and Collector of the district is a singular officer in a district. Learned Additional Advocate General III has not been able to pinpoint to any definition, statutory or otherwise of the expression "district officers" to show that it could not include Block Development Officer or it only meant the Collector of the district to the exclusion of all others. As I have pointed out above even the letter which was not for general circulation but between two individuals dated 24.2.1964 is concerned even that does not say that all others except the Collector of the district are incompetent to make the settlement.