BHOLA SAW Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitioners have come before this Court being aggrieved by the action of the respondents threatening demolition of their residential houses standing on a portion of Khata no. 471, plot no. 2347, village Chitrapur, District -Ramgarh, which according to them, is being made without resorting to any proceeding whatsoever or any order from any competent authority.

(2.) PETITIONER Bhola Saw in WPC No. 765/08 and Mazhar Alam in WPC No. 878/08 are the descendants of Uttim Sahu and Badruddin Hasan @ Sheikh Badruddin Hasan respectively who claim to be settled 0.10 acres and 0.54 acres of land, by the Manager of Ramgarh Estate on payment of proper salami, in the year 1945 and 1941 respectively in the said plot being plot no. 2347 Khata No. 471 village Chitrapur. Petitioners Enayatullah in WPC No. 865/08, Shafiullah in WPC No. 877/08, Bishndeo Ram in WPC No. 880/08 and Dinanath Mahto in WPC No. 867/08 have been sold certain portions of land by the petitioner Mazhar Alam and his brother Zafar Alam in the year 1999.

(3.) RESPONDENT State have appeared and filed their counter affidavit in each of the respective cases. Their common case is that the petitioners have claimed settlement of their land on the basis of Sada Hukumnama followed by possession and issuance of rent receipt by the then Ramgarh Estate. It is further submitted on their behalf that the said piece of land being area of 6.06 acres of land is recorded in plot no. 2347 khata no. 471 as Gairmajurua Khas land of Ex -landlord. The said land was notified as Bazar and even in Survey Map of 1909 -10, the land is notified as Bazar and the land is entered as Sairat in Sairat Register. The sairat was previously under the jurisdiction of Anchal Office which has been transferred to Bazar Samittee which has constructed various structures and market shades for local traders. The lands have been usurped through subterfuge and encroached by these petitioners. Respondents have raised a question that the settlement of the land in question said to have been made by the erstwhile landlord is illegal.