TULSI RAM GANJHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the communication dated 27.7.2007 issued by the respondent No. 4, Circle Officer, Khunti by which petitioner has been informed that the land in question for which petitioner was seeking settlement in his favour has already been settled in the name of others. Petitioner has sought further direction to reopen the settlement and after giving opportunity to him settle the land in his favour. Petitioner claims to be ex-army man as per his identity card (Annexure-1) and submitted that on his initiative bandobasti case No. 81-82/- was initiated vide Annexure-2 for settlement of 'gair majaruwa khas' land in plot Nos. 340, 501 and 38 in khata No. 62 having an area of 5 acres. However, petitioner is aggrieved since, it has come to his knowledge vide Annexure-4 that the said land has been settled in favour of 5 persons named therein for different area without considering the case of the petitioner or giving him opportunity to represent. However, it appears that the persons in whose favour (and has been settled vide order dated 27.7.2007 have not been made party in the present writ application. It is further submitted on behalf the petitioner that his representation, thereafter, vide Annexure-5 before the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti is for reconsideration of the settlement and giving opportunity to him as he has been in cultivating possession of the same since last 20 years.

(2.) Respondent-State have appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is stated on behalf of the respondents that there is no mention of any record in the 'Bandobasti Panji'/Settlement Record in respect of the petitioner. It is further submitted that plot No. 501 measuring an area of 5.25 acres is recorded as NADI and plot No. 340 is recorded as Parti Nala. In response to the statement made in para 8 of the writ petition, it is stated that petitioner made a representation on 4.7.2007, whereafter he has been informed vide memo No. 427(ii) dated 27.7.2007 that 3.65 acres in plot No. 38, 3.43 acres in plot No. 340 have been settled in favour of different persons by order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti dated 22.12.1988. It is further stated that plot No. 501 is a NADI and demand is not running in anybody's name and used for Irrigation and Drinking Water purpose for animals. It is also used by villagers for bathing and washing clothes. So it is a place of common use and benefit and NADI cannot be settled in favour of anyone. List of settles is given in the chart in para 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent. In the supplementary counter affidavit they have also stated that petitioner had earlier filed petition for settlement of land before the Anchal Adhikari in the capacity of cultivator and not in the capacity of ex-army man as a kokar. However, it is stated that under Section 64 of the CNT Act no conversion of the land to kokar can be made before the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner, which the petitioner has failed to obtain. Counsel for the respondent submits that settlement in question has been made in favour of the landless persons 20 years back in the year 1988 and communication was sent vide Annexure-4 to the petitioner, while the settlees have not been made parties in the writ petition and in their absence no order can be passed to unsettle them as they are necessary parties.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. Annexure-4, which the petitioner seeks quashing appears to be a communication conveyed upon the representation of the petitioner dated 4.7.2002 that 5 persons named therein have been settled with different piece of land in plot Nos. 38, 340 by the order passed in the settlement case dated 22.12.1988 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti. The petitioner claims to be in cultivating possession of plot No. 501 but no order la that effect by any competent authority has been brought on record. The persons who have been settled in the year 1988 are not impleaded in the present writ petition as they are proper and necessary parties who may be aggrieved by the direction in the instant case to unsettle their settlement. Moreover, the plot No. 501 appears to be NADI used for common benefits and cannot be settled with anyone.