RAM SAGAR PASWAN v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

as such they have been taken together and being disposed of by a common order. Prayer of the petitioners is for quashing of notice dated 20.9.2006 issued under the signature of Circle Officer, Bhagwanpur directing them to vacate lands settled with them or their father. In this notice it has also been indicated that in case of failure to vacate, expenses of eviction will be charged from them and they will be evicted by using force. Ram Sagar Paswan petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 9279 of 2007 is in possession of lands appertaining to Khata No. 3, Plot No. 753/1108 in Mouza Lakhanpur, Thana No. 299 measuring 3 Katha. This land was settled in favour of his father Pradeep Paswan in Settlement Case No. 11/2002-03 and parcha under Privileged Person Homestead Tenancy Act had been issued. Triveni Paswan, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10847 of 2007 is the son of Sukhi Paswan in whose favour land of Khata No. 3, Plot No. 738/2075 of Mouza Lakhanpur, measuring 3 katha was settled in Settlement Case No. 03/2002-03. Rajendra Roy, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10872 of 2007 is in possession of land appertaining to Khata No. 3, Khesra No. 1424 of Mouza Lakhanpur, having an area of three katha of land. This land was settled in his favour in Settlement Case No. 11/2002- - 3 -

03. Ganesh @ Ganeshi Paswan, in C.W.J.C. No. 11080 of 2007 is in possession of 3 katha of land of Mouza Lakhanpur appertaining to Khata No. 3, Plot No. 738/2075. This land was settled with him in Settlement Case No. 1/2002-03. Petitioner’s case is that they and their family members are landless persons belonging to B.P.L category. They had no land for their homestead. However, their ancestors had constructed their houses long time back over the Government land and started residing there for last more than 50 years. Subsequently they applied for settlement of those lands over which they have constructed their houses being the landless persons. Basgit Parcha was issued in their favour under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act in different settlement cases and Parchas were issued in favour of their father or in favour of the petitioners. To their surprise, petitioners have received notices issued by Anchaladhikari dated 20.9.2006 directing them to vacate land in their possession within a week of notice. In the notice there is also threatening that in case of not vacating, they will be evicted forcibly and the charge for eviction will be realized from them. All four petitioners have stated in their petition that to the best of their knowledge settlement of lands made in their favour has not been cancelled and Parchas withdrawn till date, in accordance with law as they have not received any notice for such cancellation. They are not in a position to know the reason for issuance of such notice to them. Petitioner’s further case is that they have constructed their houses over the plot of land to the best of their capacity and living peacefully with their - 4 - family. They are paying rent for the land to the State as provided under the law. Petitioners have challenged the notices issued to them as arbitrary and illegal, since it do not disclose as to why and under which provision of law the petitioners are being asked to vacate the premises in which they are living after constructing their houses over the lands settled with them. Counter affidavits have been filed in all four cases. Similar statement has been made in all counter affidavits. It has been stated that the land which have been settled with the petitioners or their fathers is “Gairmajurua Aam” land. It is public road and cannot be settled with anyone for homestead purposes. The then Circle Officer, DCLR and Sub Divisional Officer in connivance with the settlees, illegally settled these lands with them. Later on, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Teghra when came to know about this illegal settlement, he reported this matter to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, Begusarai on report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Teghra ordered for cancellation of Bandobasti patta in favour of the settlees in different cases. The District Magistrate also ordered to make entry in the revenue records regarding cancellation of settlement and to get the land vacated from illegal possession of the settlees, treating them as an encroacher. The settlement itself was bad as the Government of Bihar who is the appropriate authority had not ordered for settlement of lands. In the given circumstance, the illegal settlement was cancelled. In the counter affidavit though it has been stated that the notices were issued to the settlees but in support of this contention, none of the so called notices issued to the petitioners have not been annexed - 5 - with the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit filed in C.W.J.C. No. 9279 of 2007 the order dated 18.6.2005 has been annexed as Annexure-A. By this order recommendation was made for cancellation of settlement in favour of the petitioners. This order also do not indicate that before making recommendation for cancellation, any proceeding was initiated for cancellation and the petitioners were given opportunity to show cause. In the order sheet of earlier settlement case, it was mentioned that settlement of particular land was recommended in favour of the settlees as nature of the land has been changed though earlier it was recorded as public road, but now residential houses of the applicants are there, and it has become homestead. In this counter affidavit further it is stated that since settlement of “Gairmajurua- Aam” land was made in favour of settlees by the then Circle Officer, D.C.L.R. and S.D.O. in connivance with the applicants, as such disciplinary action is being recommended against them. Draft of charges framed has been annexed which also indicates that show cause has been asked from delinquent. It has not been mentioned in the counter affidavit that, whether on the basis of charges any departmental proceeding actually was initiated and if initiated what is the final result of that departmental proceeding. Admittedly, petitioners are landless persons. They have no other place to live. Earlier settlement was made in their favour. Considering the fact that the nature of the land though recorded in Khatiyan as Gairmajurua Aam land, with the passage of time its nature - 6 - has changed and the residential houses of petitioners were found existing over it, settlement had been made after holding proper enquiry with the approval of the appropriate authority, as such the statement in the counter affidavit that there was no approval of the State Government is not correct. It is also apparent that before cancellation of settlement made in favour of the petitioners they were not noticed, arbitrarily an order of cancellation was filed and the petitioners were treated as encroacher and illegal occupant of the land. This could not have been done by the respondents specially when jamabandi has been created in favour of the petitioners and they are making payment of rent to the State. Another illegality which is there in the case of Ram Sagar Paswan is that notice for eviction has been sent in the name of dead person, Pradeep Paswan who was the father of the petitioner. On consideration of these facts and circumstances, the notices issued to the petitioners for vacating the land earlier settled their favour are quashed. The respondent no. 3, Collector, Begusarai as well as respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 are directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioners, unless an order is passed in a proceeding initiated in this regard in which they are duly noticed, given opportunity to show cause and observing all formalities an order is passed in accordance with law. All these applications are allowed. P. Kumar (Mridula Mishra, J.)