Md. Basiruddin vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 613 Jhar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 W.P. (C) No. 2795 of 2006
    Md. Basiruddin, son of Shekh Nabi Mian, resident of Batta, P.S.
    Kanke, P.S. Husir, Dist. Ranchi.
                                                  ...       ...         ...      Petitioner
                      Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand.
    2. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi.
    3. Forest & Environment Department, Jharkhand, through-Divisional
       Forest Officer, Ranchi East Forest Division, Ranchi.
    4. Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi.
    5. L.R.D.C., Ranchi.
    6. S.D.O., Ranchi.
    7. Additional Collector, Ranchi.
    8. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
    9. Halka Karamchari, Kanke Anchal, Kanke, Ranchi.
                                              ...         ...         ...         Respondents
                       ---------

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---------

For the Petitioner: Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I

---------

09/Dated: 06.02.2023

1) Heard the parties.

2) This writ petition has filed for the following reliefs:-

"For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon'ble Court for quashing the order dated 13.03.2006 passed by respondent no.2 in Ranchi Survey Appeal No. 01 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the respondent no.2 allowed the appeal of respondent no.3 and set aside the order dated 23.10.2002 passed in Appeal No. 212 of 1993 Kanke and rejected the settlement of 2.125 acres of land which was settled in favour of the petitioner on 10.06.1982 in Kanke Anchal by a Land Settlement Case No. 2/76-77 in the R.S. Khata No. 159, R.S. Plot No. 27 and area 2.125 acres."

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a

retired CRPF personnel. After his retirement, on 16.09.1976, a

proposal was initiated for settlement of five acres of land for

agricultural purposes. The concerned authority after completing

the required procedures settled the land admeasuring 2.125 acres

in village Kumharia, Thana Kane, at Thana No.34, R.S. Khata

No.159, R.S. Plot No.27 on 10.06.1982. Thereafter, the petitioner

also deposited Salami with respect to the same property on

31.10.1984. The property was also mutated in the name of the

petitioner and rent was fixed. Correction slip was also issued in

connection with the said property. The rent-receipts dated

31.03.1985, 30.08.1988 and 27.12.1988 were also issued. The

petitioner has also annexed a sketch-map of the aforesaid land as

Annexure 5 to this writ petition.

4) By placing the impugned order dated 13.03.2006 (Annexure 8),

the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire

background of the case has been mentioned therein. The

impugned order shows that one order dated 23.10.2002 was

passed by the Court of Charged Officer (Settlement), Ranchi

regarding the entries in the current Settlement Operation. The land

in question is only a part of R.S. Plot No. 27 having total area of

2.12½ acres and according to revisional survey (1935, Records of

Right) the land of this Khata (Khata No.159 and Plot No.27) was

recorded as forest (Jungle Jhari) land and in the current survey

operation also, this land was entered as forest land. Against this

entry, the petitioner had filed an objection under Section 83 of the

Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on the ground that out of the

aforesaid area, a potion measuring 2.12 ½ acres was settled in

favour of the petitioner in the year 1982-83 vide Case No.02/1976-

77 of Kanke Anchal and the Settlement Officer had taken care of

all the aforesaid objections. Inspite of following the due procedure

in the matter of settlement of land in favour of the petitioner, the

objection raised by the petitioner was rejected.

Consequently, the petitioner filed appeal in the court of Charged

Officer (Settlement, Ranchi) under Section 89(1) of the Chota

Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which was registered as Settlement

Revision Case No.153 of 1988 and the Charged Officer accepted

the ground of the petitioner that the land was settled to him on

10.06.1982 vide Settlement Case No.02/1976-77 and passed his

order on 27.07.1992 allowing the petition and directed for deletion

of the name of the Forest Department and to enter the name of the

petitioner.

Against order dated 27.07.1992, the forest department filed

revision under Section 89(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act,

1908 before the Divisional Commissioner, Ranchi which was

numbered as Settlement Appeal No. 212 of 1993. The Divisional

Commissioner heard the Settlement Appeal No. 212 of 1993 along

with 06 other cases and a common order was passed remanding

the matter for fresh decision. However, after remand, the Charge

Officer instead of hearing the case in Settlement Revision Case

No. 153/Kanke/88, opened a new case record which was

numbered Case No. 212/1993 and thereafter passed the order on

23.10.2002 reiterating its earlier order dated 27.07.1992. The

authority had rejected the claim of the Forest Department on the

ground that the land was already settled with the present

petitioner.

Thereafter, the Forest Department filed Ranchi Survey Appeal No.

01 of 2003 under Section 89(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act,

1908, in which the impugned order dated 13.03.2006 has been

passed.

5) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not in

dispute from the perusal of the impugned order itself that the

settlement of 2.12½ acres of land was started in Kanke Anchal

and thereafter it was settled in the name of the petitioner and

necessary Jamabandi was created and the rent-receipts were also

issued. He further submits that the Appellate Authority framed two

issues at para no.11 of the judgment - (a) Is the land in question

forest land or not? (b) Is the land settlement Md. Basiruddin in

accordance with law or not? The learned counsel submits that by

the impugned order the authority has recorded a finding that the

land in question is forest land and has also recorded that the

settlement made in favour of petitioner was not in accordance with

law and certain errors were committed by the Halka Karamchari.

The learned counsel has further submitted that the authority has

also recorded that the land could not have been settled in favour

of the petitioner as he is not a military person and not an Ex-

serviceman, rather the petitioner was in CRPF. The authority has

further recorded that the settlement of land made in favour of the

petitioner in 1982 was not only violative of Forest (Conservation)

Act, 1980 but was not in accordance with the Government

Instructions and therefore held the settlement void ab initio and

consequently allowed the appeal.

6) The learned counsel has submitted that the settlement having

been made in favour of the petitioner after following due

procedures of law could not have been declared to be void ab

initio by the impugned order. The learned counsel has further

submitted that in view of the necessary notification in connection

with settlement of land, a person retiring from CRPF is also

included in the list of the persons who are entitled for settlement.

The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment dated 08.05.2012

passed by this Court in the case of Biswanath Mahali versus

state of Jharkhand being W.P. (C) No. 6268 of 2008 and

submits that the case of the present petitioner is covered by the

aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel submits that if the

respondents were claiming the property, it was open for them to

take recourse to law and the settlement once in favour of the

petitioner could not have been declared to be void ab initio.

7) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on

the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has

submitted that the land settled in favour of the petitioner is a forest

land and, therefore, the same could not have been settled in

favour of the petitioner but it is not in dispute that the property

involved in this case was in possession of the petitioner and the

settlement was made and further orders were also issued by the

competent authority in connection with payment of salami ,

mutation , correction slip , payment of rent . It is also not in dispute

that no proceeding for cancellation of settlement was every

initiated against the petitioner.

8) After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering

the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the

considered view that once a settlement of land was made in favour

of the petitioner by following all the due procedures of law,

followed by payment of Salami, possession of the petitioner,

mutation, issuance of correction slip, payment of rent etc., there

was no occasion to declare the settlement to be void ab initio. In

the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order,

whereby the settlement has been declared to be void ab initio,

cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in absence of any

proceeding initiated for the purposes of cancellation of settlement

or for declaration of any right, title or interest through a competent

court of civil jurisdiction.

9) However, this order will not debar the authorities from initiating

appropriate proceedings in connection with cancellation of the

settlement of the petitioner or to move competent court of civil

jurisdiction to get appropriate declaration regarding the right, title

and interest of the contesting parties.

10) It is also made clear that this Court has not entered into the

legality or validity of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner

and it is for the parties to proceed as per law.

11) With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition

stands disposed of.

12) Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J) Manoj/