- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that his objections against the proposed settlement of tank appertaining to plato No. 585 and 587 under Khata No. 182 in Mouza-Bharajuri in the district of Bokaro, has not been considered by the Respondents authorities.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner explains that as per the petitioner's specific case, the tank under reference along with the adjacent land constitutes a raiyati land of the petitioner and such raiyati land has never vested in the State, even under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Despite the fact that the land comprising a tank and adjacent land stands recorded in the name of the petitioner's ancestor and the petitioner has been coming in occupation and possession of the same, the Respondent authorities have now proposed to settle the petitioner's Tank in favour of the Respondent No. 4 which, according to the counsel for the petitioner, is totally in violation of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.;