- (1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have been raising buildings on the land of Plot no.2302 of Mouja-Kathaun, Poraiyahat Block, Distict- Godda, which was settled in favour of the petitioner's grand father long back.
(2.) IT has been stated that since after settlement, the petitioner has been in possession of the land and has been paying rent regularly. The respondents without any legal acquisition of the land, forcibly started construction of the building over the land. The petitioner protested, but the same was not heeded upon. It has been submitted that the petitioner be either given due compensation or the respondents be directed to demolish the construction. The respondents have contested the writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed stating, inter alia, that though the settlement was made in favour of the petitioner's grand father, they never came in possession of the land. It was, therefore, sufficient indication that they are not interested with the land. The construction of the Government building is in the public purpose and the construction is complete up to upper floor. There was no malafide intention of the respondents for the said construction. It has been further stated that the revenue authorities are ready to make settlement of alternative land or land of same nature, if the petitioner proves his ownership and physical possession over the land. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record. According to the petitioner, the respondents have forcibly constructed the Government building over the land, which was allotted to the grand father of the petitioner long back and over which they have got valid right, title and possession and he has been paying rent in respect of the land up-to- date.
(3.) ON perusal of the statement made in the counter affidavit, I find that even the respondents have accepted that the land was allotted to the petitioner's predecessors and that the petitioner has been paying rent in respect of the land till date. At the same time, the respondents have claimed that the petitioner has not been in possession of the land since long and, as such, he is not entitled to get any compensation. The stand of the respondents is contradictory. At least they have accepted that there was valid allotment of land in favour of petitioner's predecessors and the petitioner has been paying rent in respect of the land up-to- date and the rent has been accepted by the concerned respondent. Since the petitioner has been recognized as a tenant in respect of the land by accepting rent from him, the respondents cannot dispute or deny his tenancy right over the land in question. The tenancy right can be denied only after getting decree/order of the court of competent jurisdiction. No such decree or order has been obtained by the respondents against the petitioner. In view of the above, the respondents have no right to illegally or forcibly dispossess the petitioner for any purpose whatsoever.;