ASHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.6.1989 (Annexure -3), passed by the respondent No. 4 Sub -Divisional Officer, Godda in Settlement Case No. 105 of 1988 -89, whereby the settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioner was not confirmed and also for quashing the order dated 13.7.1990 (Annexure -2), passed by the respondent No. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Godda affirming the order of the respondent No. 4 and cancelling the settlement of land made to the petitioner and also the order dated 28.4.1992 (Annexure -1), passed by the respondent No. 2 Commissioner Santhal Parganas Division Dumka, affirming the order of the respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of mauza -gunghasa within the district of Godda. The said mauza was declared as a pradhani mauza and the land measuring about 20 Bighas 16 Kathas within Plot No. 164 of the said mauza was recorded as 'parti kadim' (waste lands) under Anabadi Khaia No. 55 in the last survey settlement. The petitioner's father was a jamabandi ralyat of the said mauza owning a small piece of land within plot Nos. 1044 and 1219 within the said mauza. The father of the petitioner had no male issue and, therefore, the petitioner's marriage was done in a gharjamai form and her husband lives with her in the said mauza. On the claim that she is a poor person belonging to a backward community and being a permanent resident of mauza gunghasa and having no separate jamabandi in her name and also on the ground that her husband who has also permanently settled with her in the said village, has been rendering services to the village community as a Dresser, working in the Primary Health Centre, Poriahat, the petitioner had applied before the pradhan for settlement of a portion of the waste lands in Plot No. 1064, which was contiguous to the plot No. 1044 held by the petitioner's father.

(3.) AFTER obtaining the land by way of settlement, the petitioner reclaimed 3 Bighas of the land by converting the same into dhani land and has been growing paddy thereon while the remaining portion is being used by her as a bari land over which maize and other crops are being grown by her. Eversince after the settlement of the land made in her favour, the petitioner has been paying rent to the village pradhan, After making settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner, the village pradhan had also sent his written intimation to the Sub - divisional Officer, Godda through Registered Post for confirmation of the settlement. The petitioner also filed a petition before the Sub -divisional Officer, Godda for confirmation of the above settlement of the lands in question annexing therewith the Report of inspection made by the Circle Officer and the karamchari. A Settlement Case No. 105 of 1988 -89 was initiated in the Court of the Sub -divisional Officer, Godda who in course of the proceedings, by his order dated 26.3.1989, called for a Report from the Circle Officer and also issued notice to the village pradhan and the 16 annas raiyats of the village. The Circle Officer as well as the village pradhan by their respective reports recommended the confirmation of the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner. Though notices were issued to the 16 annas raiyats of the mauza but no objection was filed by any of the raiyats against the settlement. Despite this, the Sub -divisional Officer, Godda vide his impugned order dated 24.6.1989 (Annexure -3), had refused to confirm the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the land falls within urban area of Poriahat and the Mercy Hospital is situated by the side of the land.