ADITYA KUMAR SINGHDEO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing 'Parwana' issued vide Letter no. 481 dtd. 4/8/2015 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) under the signature of the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro, whereby the Raiyati water tank of the petitioner, pertaining to Khata No. 95, Plot Nos. 877 and 878, area 1.79 acres, situated at village Bansgarhi, has been settled in favour of respondent no. 7 - Basudeo Baski.

(2.) The factual background of the case of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition, is that earlier also the State authorities had tried to settle the said water tank of the petitioner for the purpose of fisheries which was challenged by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner in a suit being Title Suit No. 27/1980, however, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment passed in the said Title Suit, an appeal being Title Appeal No. 21/1990 was preferred, which was decreed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner vide judgment dtd. 12/2/1996 declaring the right, title and interest over the said Tank. Against the judgment passed in the said title appeal, the State authorities did not prefer any second appeal before the High Court and, thus, the same attained finality.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 'Parwana' has been issued in favour of the respondent no. 7 for settlement of the said water tank for the period 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18. Against the said settlement, the petitioner made representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, however, no heed was paid. It is further submitted that on the basis of inspection report of Halka Karamchari, a report was sent by the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari on 23/2/2016 to the District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Office, Chas, in which it was specifically mentioned that the rent receipt of the said water tank has been issued till the year 2002-03 in favour of petitioner. It was also reported inter alia that the learned Additional District Judge, Bokaro has passed a judgment in Title Appeal No. 21 of 1990 in favour of the petitioner with respect to his raiyati right over the said water tank. 3A. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further contends that the action of the respondent authorities has put the petitioner to enormous harassment and mental agony and also huge financial loss and he has been made to suffer by allowing him to use his water tank for irrigation purpose. It is further submitted that the respondent - State has itself accepted the petitioner's raiyati right over the said water tank, which is evident from the report of the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari that till 2002-03 rent receipt has been issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. However, despite of the said fact, the same has been put to auction in connivance of the respondent authorities arbitrarily, defeating the raiyati right of the petitioner over the said water tank.