SALIL MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 15th September, 2018 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Godda- respondent no.4 in Settlement Cancellation Case no.02 of 2018-19 by which the settlement made in favour of the petitioners with respect to the land measuring an area of 3 Bighas 16 Kathas and 6 Dhurs, appertaining to Daag no.184, situated at Mouja Kumardih, P.S. Godda, District Godda has been cancelled, which according to the petitioners, was settled in their favour after holding an appropriate settlement proceeding, affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda- respondent no.3 in R.M.A. Case no.53 of 1992-93, and that the Circle Officer, Godda- respondent no.6 had submitted the report in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.1006 of 2016-17 that the petitioners were in possession of the land and the Jamabandi running in their favour is legal and valid, which finds place in Register-II.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, while referring to paragraph no.13 of the writ petition, submits that aggrieved with the order passed by the respondent no.4, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 57 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 before the respondent no.3, however, the same is not being taken up, as the respondent no.3 is not holding the Court. It has also been averred in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition that the respondent authorities have affixed pillars over the said land and are bent upon to make construction over the same. The respondent authorities are also taking steps for dispossession of the petitioners from the said land without giving prior notice to them.

(3.) Learned A.C. to G.P.IV submits that considering the ensuing assembly election, the respondent no.3 must be engaged in the process of election and as such he might not have been in position to hold the Court.