TRIVENI PRASAD PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought a direction on the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the proceeding of Case No. 1 of 1982 -83 under the purported provision of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). It has been stated that the said proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the year 1982. The learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector by his order dated 1.7.1988 after thorough inquiry, has found the settlement by the ex - landlord genuine and is not covered by the mischief contemplated under Section 4(h) of the said Act. He has, thus, found the proceeding worth dropping and recommended for the same to the Additional Collector. Since then the respondent No. 4 has been keeping the matter pending. The petitioner made the said grievance before the Commissioner, who, by order dated 22.2.1999, had directed the Additional Collector to dispose of the said proceeding under Section 4(h) as quickly as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of the order. It has been stated that despite the said direction of the Commissioner, the proceeding has not been disposed of.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent, stating inter alia, that there was a large scale land scam in respect of Gair Mqjurua Malik land and the matter is still under investigation. The petitioners case also requires thorough investigation and for that purpose the proceeding was initiated under Section 4(h) of the said Act for annulment of the settlement which requires a logical conclusion as per law. However, nothing has been said regarding the reason for long pendency and the time, which is likely to be consumed for arriving at the conclusion and disposing of the proceeding.