RUKSANA KHATUN @ RUKHIA KHATUN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in R.M.P. Case No. 1 of 1997-98 said to have been initiated on the application of Arjun Rabidas, who is the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1057 of 2006, challenging the settlement and gift purcha in favour of Abdul Hamid, adoptive father of the petitioner, in W.P. (C) No. 1053 of 2006 Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun. By the aforesaid impugned common order the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun is aggrieved on account of the reason that validly made settlement and gift purcha issued in B.P.P.H.T. Case No. 4 of 1980-81, contested by Shashi Rabidas, father of Arjun Rabidas, the other petitioner, has been sought to be cancelled after 24 years on misconceived grounds. It has further submitted on behalf of the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun that the proceeding for annulment of the same settlement initiated by the Shashi Rabidas, father of Arjun Rabidas, in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 255/1981-82 was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, but again attempt has been made in Revenue Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 1997-98 by Arjun Rabidas wherein, impugned order has been passed cancelling the settlement in favour of the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun by the District Commissioner, Pakur and declaring the said piece of land to be treated as Government land by holding the transfer in the name of Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun by her adoptive father Abdul Hamid as in contravention of Section 15 read with Section 9 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Deputy Commissioner has acted like title court in considering whether the transfer by the said Abdul Hamid in the name of Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun the petitioner was hot proper. However, his findings are also not conclusive rather uncertain and vague on this point.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun also submitted that the rent receipts of the said plot were constantly issued after the settlement in 1981-82 and he has submitted that the Circle Officer has submitted a enquiry report giving all the facts in favour of the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun and also stating that the widow of Abdul Hamid had deposed in favour of the present petitioner by an affidavit that she was properly adopted.