BASANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.1.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No.2) in Case no. 57 of 2004 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.6.2003 passed by the Respondents No. 4/5 in " Basgit Parcha  Case No. 10/2002 -03/2/03 -04 has been rejected. It is further prayed for quashing the order dated 28.6.2003 including the entire proceeding of "Basgit Parcha  Case no. 10/2002 -03/2/03 -04 passed by the respondents no. 4/5 whereby the said respondents have issued "Basgit Parcha  with regard to Khata No. 27 Plot No. 9177 measuring area 03 decimal.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring the impugned order as well as other materials annexed to this petition pointed out that the land in question is a proposed notified area and therefore, under section 3 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Manual Basgit Parcha cannot be allowed in respect of the lands which are vested in the Government or a local authority as provided section 3(a) as well as (b) of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Manual. The learned counsel for petitioner by referring Annexure -17 i.e. report submitted by the Additional Collector dated 4.8.2005 as well as Annexure -8 i.e report submitted by the SDO Barhi, Hazaribagh addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 5.3.2003 pointed out that Additional Collector as well as SDO have in clear terms submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh that Respondent No.10 is not eligible for the purpose of grant of Basgit Parcha and the said Parcha is required to be cancelled. However, the learned Deputy Commissioner without taking into consideration the recommendation/opinion given in the said report submitted by the SDO as well as Additional Collector Hazaribagh. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the order passed in W.P(C) No. 5717 of 2004 (Annexure15) pointed out that the petitioner had also approached this court for quashing the Basgit Parcha as also the order by which the Circle Officer, Barhi Anchal has issued Basgit Parcha in favour of the respondent no. 10 and while disposing of the said writ petition this court by order dated 2.11.2004 directed the Deputy Commissioner Hazaribagh to consider the representation of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. However, in pursuance to the said order, the learned Deputy Commissioner has not properly considered the provision contained in Section 3 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Manual as well as contain raised with regard to eligibility of the respondent No. 10 in the said writ petition. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner may be quashed/ set aside.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.10 did not remain present though sufficient opportunity has been given to him.