Santoo Mandal & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3889 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                 W.P. (C) No. 2304 of 2010
                         ........

Santoo Mandal & Others .... ..... Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand & Others .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO ............

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent / State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, A.C. to Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C.(L&C)-I.

For the Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate.

........

08/18.10.2021.

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/State, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, A.C. to Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Settlement Officer vide dated 24.02.1989 (Annexure-1) in Settlement Case No. 133/67-68 has passed an order with regard to settlement of land in favour of 21 persons and also referred that the Settlement Case No. 32/77-78, which has been settled in favour of 19 persons before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar for approval of the settlement of lands, but the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar has refused to approve the same vide order dated 30.07.1985 passed in Misc. Case No. 19/1985-86 by holding that the proposed land is not fit for settlement as would be evident from the order dated 02.07.1964 passed by the Forest Settlement Officer in his F.S. Claim Case No. 443/61-62 and thus, rejected the petition for review.

The order of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar dated 30.07.1985 passed in Misc. Case No. 19/1985-86 has been affirmed by the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka vide order dated 16.06.2009 passed in R.M.A. No. 323/1985-86, by holding that the land as per Record of Rights had been notified as forest land and as per judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court, the forest land should not be settled for agricultural purposes. So, the court below had been quite justified in rejecting the petition of the petitioners for settlement of forest land with them and accordingly, dismissed the R.M. Appeal.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that since forest land is not having any trees because of population and the same has been rightly recommended for settlement by the Sub Divisional Officer, which has not been properly considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka, as such, both the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka may be set aside and the land may be settled in favour of the petitioners as recommended by the Sub Divisional Officer, Deoghar.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, A.C. to Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I assisted by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, have submitted that the forest land cannot be settled with any person and the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar as well as the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka have rightly not approved the recommendation made by the Sub Divisional Officer, as such, this Court may not interfere with the findings and reasonings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar vide order dated 30.07.1985 passed in Misc. Case No. 19/1985-86 as well as order of the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka dated 16.06.2009 passed in R.M. Appeal No. 323/1985-86 and may dismiss the present writ petition.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the land is a forest land. Accordingly, the order 30.07.1985 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Case No. 19/1985-86 as well as the order dated 16.06.2009 passed by Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M. Appeal No. 323/1985-86 are hereby affirmed as the forest land cannot be settled with any person.

Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-