- (1.) This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which, the decision taken by the authority vide order dated 18.02.2015 as contained under annexure-5 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Barhi Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder, he has refused to recognize the petitioner as raiyat for the purpose of receiving compensation against acquisition of land pertaining to Khata No.1, Plot No.7 out of 3.24 acres for the purpose of construction of national highway-1 as also for quashing the order dated 18.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner as contained under annexure-6, by which, the order dated 18.02.2015 has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh.
(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the land measuring an area of 3.24 acres situated at Khata No.1, Plot No.07, Thana no.41 in village Sardarpur in the district of Koderma which was initially in the Ramgarh Ward No.2 and was settled in favour of the ancestors of the petitioner in the year 1926 through Hukumnama. After coming into the effect of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the petitioner became the raiyat of the land in question by virtue of the provision as contained under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and continued making payment of rent. In the year 1952, there was an amicable partition amongst the family members and further partition on 14.05.1981 amongst the legal heirs. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms has initiated a proceeding as provided under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and arrived at the conclusion by taking decision by cancelling the Jamabandi which was running in the name of the father of the petitioner vide order dated 02.06.1970 and being aggrieved with the said order, the father of the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority being Misc. Case No.14 of 1970 which was allowed vide order dated 19.02.1971 by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms dated 02.06.1970 and accordingly, the Jamabandi was restored. The land in question was subjected to acquisition proceeding which culminated into the land acquisition proceeding being Land Acquisition Case No.01/2002-2003, upon its conclusion, the petitioner has been held to be entitled to get the amount of compensation as would appear from annexure-4 appended to the writ petition but the rest part of the land even though acquired for the purpose of construction of national highway, when no compensation amount has been paid, the petitioner has made an application before the competent authority for disbursement of amount of compensation, upon which, an inquiry has been conducted which ultimately culminated into an order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms who vide order dated 18.02.2015 has refused to recognize the petitioner as raiyat thereby, denying the claim of the petitioner for compensation which has also been affirmed by the appellate authority.
(3.) Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the land since has been settled sometime in the year 1926 and as such, the authority who has initiated a proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi has passed an order in exercise of power conferred under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, has been reversed by the appellate authority by taking into consideration the scope of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 which provides the cut of date for initiation of proceeding under Section 4(h). Under the said provision, if any settlement has been made on or after 01.01.1946, a proceeding is required to be initiated by the Deputy Commissioner for conducting an inquiry about the settlement of the land but herein, since the land has been settled in the year 1926, therefore, no proceeding can be initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Further submission has been made that the State while making the acquisition of the land has paid the amount of compensation for part of the land as would appear from annexure-4 and as such, there is no reason for the State-Respondent to deny the claim of the petitioner with respect to the disbursement of the amount of the compensation. ;