Ajit Narayan Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder notice issued vide memo dated 26.09.2018 (Annexure 6) issued by the Circle Officer, Maheshpur Circle, Maheshpur, district Pakur is under challenge, by which, the petitioner has been restrained from making any construction over the land appertaining to Khata No. 162, Dag (Plot) No. 475 of Mauza Maheshpur, Thana Maheshpur of Pakur district, which is settled in the name of father of the petitioner.

It is the case of the petitioner that the land in question has been settled by the ex-landlord Maheshpur Raj through unregistered Bandobasti way back in the year 1945. Thereafter, a proceeding under 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was initiated, which was settled in the name of father of petitioner by landlord bearing R.E.R Case No. 99/1953-54 vide order dated 25.06.1959, by which, it was found that the land was settled in the year 1945 and rents were paid regularly, hence there is no reason for annulment of the settlement.

However, on the basis of said settlement when the petitioner has started construction over the plot, on the objection raised by one Sader Seikh and Archana Singh Revenue Misc. Case No. 03/11-12 was filed before the Court of Circle Officer, Maheshpur stating that the land in question was recorded as Rasta. The Circle Officer, Maheshpur after considering all the documents submitted by both the parties did not pass any order and sent the record before the Court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Pakur vide order dated 25.06.2015, where the case was re-numbered as Revenue Misc. Case No. 05/17-18 and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Pakur vide order 20.02.2018 declared that the objection raised by Sader Seikh and Archana Singh is not maintainable. But, again the son of Sadar Seikh, namely Afroz Ali respondent no. 5 herein made an application in the Court of Circle Officer, Maheshpur and raised the same objection which his father had earlier raised in Revenue Misc. Case No. 03/11-12. Pursuant thereto, the Circle Officer, Maheshpur vide memo dated 26.09.2018 issued notice to the petitioner to submit reply treating the petitioner to be encroacher, and direction was given to the petitioner to stop construction over the plot in question. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted reply dated 26.09.2018 to the Circle Officer, Maheshpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that earlier objection was raised by father of respondent no. 5 but when no relief was granted this time his son, respondent no. 5 herein has raised objection, which is not sustainable in law.

Ms. Shewata Singh, A.C to learned S.C. (L & C) II with all fairness submitted that notice has been issued by the Circle Officer, Maheshpur upon the petitioner, however no final order has been passed till date.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it appears that after the objection being raised by respondent no. 5, notices have been issued upon petitioner but no final order has been passed till date even after reply submitted by petitioner. The Circle Officer, Maheshpur ought to have pass the final order but has not done so hence the petitioner has to approach this Court.

In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to Circle Officer, Maheshpur to take a final decision in the matter after considering the reply submitted by petitioner on the notice issued vide memo no. 985 dated 26.09.2018 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. It is further directed that before taking final decision in the matter, the petitioner and the affected party, if any, be given opportunity of hearing.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.