Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2745 of 2012 ====================================================== Lutawan Rai Rajbhar S/O Late Ram Niyadi Rai R/O Village- Gyanichak, Post Office- Hanthua, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary Irrigation Department, Namely Mr. Afzal Amanullah, Father Name Not Known Government of Bihar, Patna 2. Sri Braj Kishore Rajak Father's Name Not Known Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Buxar 3. Sri Hari Basant, Executive Engineer Father's Name Not Known Ganga Pump Canal Division, Chausa, Buxar
Legal Reasoning
4. Sri Upendra Singh Father's Name Not Known Sub Divisional Officer, Sone Canal Sub Division, Manoharpur, District- Buxar 5. Kashi Ram S/O Kedar Ram R/O Village- Hethua, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar 6. Mr. Shyam Bihari Rai, Officer-In-Charge Rajpur Police Station, District- Buxar 7. Mr. Daljeet Singh, Superintendent of Police, District- Buxar ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3827 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Lutawan Rai Rajbhar S/O Late Ram Niyadi Rai R/O Village- Gyanichak, Post Office- Henthua, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Secretary Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Superintending Engineer Sone Canal Division, Buxar 2 Patna High Court MJC No.2745 of 2012 (7) dt.31-01-2013 2 3. The Executive Engineer Ganga Pump Canal Division, Chausa, Buxar 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sone Canal Sub Division, Manoharpur, District- Buxar 5. Kashi Ram S/O Kedar Ram R/O Village- Hethua, Police Station- Rajpur, District- Buxar ====================================================== .... .... Respondent/s Appearance : (In MJC No.2745 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Roy For the Respondent/s : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha AAG-15 (In CWJC No.3827 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Roy For respondent no.5 Mr. Rang Nath Choubey For the State Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha AAG-15 Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, A.C. to AAG 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 7 31-01-2013 The petitioner has filed the writ application(CWJC No. 3827 of 2012) seeking relief(s) as culled out in paragraph 1 thereof which reads thus:- appropriate writ/writs “1. That this is an application for issuance of an the Respondents to settle the canal chat of Henthua canal in favour of the petitioner situated within Manoharpur Sub Division after cancelling the settlement made in favour of respondent No.5.” directing The said writ application was considered on 12.03.2012 3 Patna High Court MJC No.2745 of 2012 (7) dt.31-01-2013 3 when the following order was passed:- “Learned counsel for the State prays for and is allowed four weeks‟ time to file counter affidavit. Issue notice to private respondent both under ordinary process as well under registered cover with A/D, for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week, failing which this application as against the concerned respondent shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. If the petitioner has sows Rabi Crops, he shall be allowed to harvest the same over the land in dispute.” The contempt application arises out of the aforesaid order dated 12.03.2012. Heard Mr. Roy for the petitioner, Mr. Choubey for respondent no.5 and learned counsel for the State. With the consent of the parties the writ application has
Decision
also been heard and is being disposed of by the present order. The petitioner claims that certain tract of land belonging to the Water Resources Department of the Government was settled with him by order dated 26.08.2011 which was subsequently sought to be cancelled by order dated 23.11.2011. Both the aforesaid orders have, however, not been enclosed with the writ application. The petitioner submits that the said land called „canal chat land‟ measuring an area of 1.73 acres situate in Henthua Canal Region was earlier settled with him and pursuant 4 Patna High Court MJC No.2745 of 2012 (7) dt.31-01-2013 4 to the advertisement through the loudspeaker the same was again sought to be settled with the eligible person(s) for another term. As per the requirement of law, the eligible claimant was required to deposit 10 per cent of the rent amount before being considered for the same. It is the case of the petitioner that he deposited the said amount whereafter the said land was directed to be settled with him inasmuch as 50% of the land rent thereof was subsequently also deposited by him. It is further the case that respondents have now sought to cancel the aforesaid settlement. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. It has been stated that settlement of chat land is now governed by the Rule called „the Bihar Canal Chat/Land Settlement Rules, 2010 (Annexure-1 of the writ application). It has been submitted that both the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 made a claim for such settlement. 10% of the amount as required to be deposited was also deposited by both of them. Inadvertently, a decision was taken to settle the land with the petitioner. No sooner it was revealed that respondent no.5 had also deposited the amount and was not eligible as per the rule provision the earlier decision to settle the subject land in favour of the petitioner was ignored and the subject land was settled with respondent no.5. Relevant information in this regard was given to all concerned 5 Patna High Court MJC No.2745 of 2012 (7) dt.31-01-2013 5 including the petitioner (Annexure-2). There is no dispute at Bar that settlement of canal/chat land is covered by the Rule. Clause 3 thereof (Annexure-1) sets out the eligibility of the person for such settlement. On bare perusal thereof it appears that the first preference in the matter of settlement of such canal chat/land is to be given to the landless members of the scheduled castes/scheduled tribes. From the pleading on record including the averments made in the writ application it appears that petitioner does not belong to scheduled castes/scheduled tribes, whereas respondent no.6 does belong to the said category. The claim of the petitioner for settlement of the subject land, therefore, cannot be allowed in the face of the rule provision(s) and the admitted fact regarding the status of the petitioner and respondent no.5. The prayer made in the application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. The matter does not rest here. As noticed above, in course of consideration of the writ application, an interim order was passed by this Court wherefrom the contempt application being MJC No.2745 of 2012 has arisen which is also placed for consideration along with the writ application. The petitioner asserts that in the light of the interim order passed by this Court he has grown wheat on the chat land/subject land. The respondent no.5 has strongly disputed the 6 Patna High Court MJC No.2745 of 2012 (7) dt.31-01-2013 6 aforesaid stand of the petitioner. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no.5 have taken a reasonable stand that this Court may not delve into the said claim and counter claim with regard to growing of the crops on the subject land by any of the parties and the said issue may be settled by directing respondent no.5 to pay a sum of Rs. 6,500/- to the petitioner towards his claim of having grown wheat crops. Learned counsel for respondent no.5, on instruction, states that respondent no.5 shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.6, 500/- by was of cash/account payee cheque which shall satisfy the claim of the petitioner with regard to the investment having been made on the subject land in growing the wheat crops. This Court is thus persuaded to dispose of the contempt application in the following terms:- Let respondent no.5 pay a sum of Rs. 6,500/- by way of cash and/or account payee cheque drawn in favour of the petitioner whereafter he shall stand discharged from the present proceeding. The said amount should be paid on or before 31st of March, 2013. It is further agreed between the petitioner and respondent no.5 that in the light of the present order the petitioner who had lodged a criminal proceeding against respondent no.5 7 Patna High Court MJC No.2745 of 2012 (7) dt.31-01-2013 7 relating to the theft of produce grown over the subject land/chat land shall move the appropriate court seeking withdrawal of the said proceeding which now seems to have become infructuous. This disposes of the writ application as well as the contempt application. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/-