- (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order no. 20/2005 dated 13.04.2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Misc. Case No. 55/1998-99 by which the land measuring 2.12 acres of Dag No. 128, Khata No. 41 situated at Mouza-Karnibad, P.S.-Kunda, District- Dumka (now Deoghar) has been settled in favour of the respondent no. 6 which, according to the petitioners, is contrary to the provisions of Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the SPT Act") as the respondent no. 6 is neither the jamabandi raiyat nor the permanent resident of the said mouza/village. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by the respondent no. 2 -the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.A. No. 32/2005-06 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition by which the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed.
(2.) In course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly, the respondent no. 6, who is an ex-serviceman, is neither a jamabandi raiyat nor a permanent resident of the concerned village. The respondent no. 3 has thus committed an error in settling the land in question in favour of the respondent no. 6 contrary to the express provisions of Section 28 of the SPT Act. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Patna High Court on 06.03.2000 (during the period of unified State of Bihar) passed in the case of "Sheikh Allauddin & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors." reported in 2000 (2) BLJR 1084, the relevant paragraph of which reads as under: "4. Section 28 of the Act contemplates that regard shall be had to the following considerations in addition to the principles recorded in the record of rights. (a) fair and equitable distribution of land according to the requirements of each raiyat and his capacity to reclaim and cultivate; (b) any special claim for services rendered to the village community, society or State; (c) contiguity or proximity of the wasteland to jamabandi land of the raiyat; (d) provision for landless labourers who are bona fide permanent residents of the village and are recorded for a dwelling house in the village. 5. All the pre-requisites for settling wasteland and vacant holdings connote that the settlee must be a jamabandi raiyat or must be permanent raiyat or must be permanent resident of the village and they are recorded in the records of right. From the materials on record, it appears that the Sub-divisional Officer before making the settlement of the land in question in favour of the petitioners had not even called for a report from the village Pradhan nor had verified the records of right. There is nothing in the writ application to show that the petitioners are jamabandi raiyats of the village and they have been recorded under Clause 16 of the records of right."
(3.) The judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court (during the period of unified State of Bihar) in the case of "Sheikh Allauddin" (supra) has also been followed by the learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court in the case of "Baldeo Mandal Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors." reported in 2006 (3) JLJR 663.;