Dismissed

Harendra Kumar Mishra v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Jharkhand HC2 Aug 2016WPC/2040/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an ex-army personnel, approached the High Court seeking settlement of waste land. The Court relied on a previous judgment directing the authorities to provide land details, which had been supplied without acceptance by the petitioner. Dismissing the fresh petition, the Court reiterated that the matter should be pursued before the competent authority.

What the court decided

AI extract

Harendra Kumar Mishra Vs Land Reforms And Revenue… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W. P. (C) No. 2040 of 2016

¶3

Harendra Mishra ..... Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Land Reforms), Dhanbad 4. The Deputy Collector, Dhanbad

¶6

The Circle Officer, Dhanbad .... Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Purnendu Sharan, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A

¶9

4/2.8.2016

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

Petitioner has approached this Court again in respect of his grievances relating to settlement of a piece of land on the ground of being ex-army personnel. He has made specific prayer this time to give lawful possession of any of the pieces of land as proposed vide Annexure-2 dated 7th March, 2012 by Circle Officer, Dhanbad bearing Memo no. 529, alternative plots being plot no. 1142, Khata no. 86 Nawadih, Mouza no. 2 Rakwa Area 10 decimal or plot no. 1439, Khata no. 86 of same mouza with the same area.

¶12

The order dated 15th February, 2012 passed in his previous writ petition being W. P. (C) No. 652 of 2007 (Annexure-1) by learned Single Bench of this Court is being reproduced hereunder as it delineates the background history of the petitioner's case.

¶13

“ The petitioner is an Ex-Army man. The controlling officer of the petitioner long back in 1984 had recommended his case to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for settlement of some waste land. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad had forwarded the request to the Circle Officer, Dhanbad asking him to submit his report through proper channel after due enquiry.

¶14

It has been submitted that the Circle Officer, thereafter, informed that the land, which was opted by the petitioner, falls within the Dhanbad Municipality and the same cannot be settled. Further it was mentioned that some other waste land can be settled with him. Since thereafter several years passed, but no decision for settlement of any waste land has been taken by the respondents. Prayer has been made in this writ petition to direct the respondents to settle any suitable waste land in favour of the petitioner.

¶15

¶16

Learned S.C. (L & C) appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner opted for settlement of municipal plot within the Dhanbad Municipality. That is not the waste land and that cannot be settled. However, the offer was made to him to take some other waste land in settlement, but the petitioner did not give any clear reply to the same.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to take settlement of any suitable waste land, but no such offer has been made to him till date.

¶18

Considering the said submissions, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Circle Officer, Dhanbad – respondent No.5 to provide clear description of the land(s) which can be settled to the petitioner, as offered by the respondents. The land must be described by mentioning Khata No., Plot No., Area, village and Thana, etc. for clear identification. Learned Standing Council submitted that such information shall be given to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶19

Accordingly, four weeks' time is allowed for making available the said information to the petitioner. On getting the aforesaid information, the petitioner shall be at liberty to exercise his option. On acceptance thereof, the respondents shall take steps for finalising the settlement process within further period of four weeks.

¶20

Learned S.C. (L & C) submitted that until final decision is taken in the matter of settlement of land, the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the present place of residence.

¶21

In view of the said fair stand taken by learned S.C. (L & C), no interim order is required to be passed by this Court.

¶22

Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned standing counsel for the State. ”

¶23

Petitioner seems to have prosecuted a contempt case being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 484 of 2012, which however was disposed of vide order dated 4th February, 2015 taking note of the stand of opposite parties as reflected in their show cause (Annexure-4) which is also being quoted hereunder:

¶24

“ None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the opposite party by referring to the statement made in the show cause on their behalf submits that the petitioner has not been disturbed from the present place of residence in compliance of the order under offence passed by this Court. It is submitted that description of the plot was also supplied to the petitioner vide Annexure-A/1 dated 07.03.2012 which he refused to accept. Therefore, the opposite parties have duly complied with the order under offence.

¶26

No one objects to such prayer and no rejoinder to the show cause has been filed. Therefore, it appears that nothing survives in the

¶27

¶28

instant contempt petition, which is, accordingly, disposed of.”

¶29

Counsel for the petitioner contends that despite approaching the respondent authorities and the petitioner willing to opt for either of the plots, no headway has been made in the process of settlement of aforesaid piece of land. Therefore, petitioner had to approach this Court again for indulgence.

¶30

Learned Government Advocate, Mr. Atanu Banerjee submits that the present writ petition for the same grievance may not be maintainable as in view of the the comprehensive direction passed in the previous writ petition two plots available for settlement at the relevant time were also communicated to the petitioner vide Annexure-2 dated 7th March, 2012. Petitioner may pursue his claim before competent authority, if still they are permissible in law and the said plots are vacant to be settled.

¶31

In the light of the aforesaid relevant facts and the previous orders passed in the case of petitioner on the same grievances, the writ petition is being disposed of simplicitor with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the matter before competent authority/respondent no. 3, Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, who may consider his grievance in accordance with law and taking into account the letter at Annexure-2 dated 7th March, 2012 and the previous orders passed by this Court.

¶32

( Aparesh Kumar Singh,J )

¶33

Harendra Kumar Mishra v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Harendra Kumar Mishra v. Land Reforms And Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijay Kumar Alias Bijay Yadav Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Deepak Kumar Vs Bokaro Steel Plant Through Deputy General Manager Contract Cell And Anr.

Bhado Oraon Vs Revenue Department

Usha Mithal Vs Home Department

Janardan Shukla and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Prayag Narayan Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.