Bipin Ram @ Vipin Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.741 of 2025 ====================================================== Bipin Ram @ Vipin Ram S/o- Late Dhurkheli Ram Resident of VillageGokhulpur Dasturpar, Chandi, P.O. and P.S.- Chandi, Dist- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

2.

The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 3.

The Addl. Collector, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

4.

The Sub Divisional Officer-cum- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa, DistrictNalanda. 5.

The Circle Officer, Chandi Block, Chandi, District- Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shyamal Prakash, Advocate Ms. Bharti Rai, Advocate Mr. Sitesh Kashyap, Advocate Md. Dilshad Alam, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Birju Prasad (GP-13) Mr. Ravi Kumar, (AC to GP-13) Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, (AC to GP-13)) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 28-01-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to ensure the compliance of the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hilsa, District- Nalanda (respondent no.4) in Case No.126 MP/2019 whereby and whereunder, a direction has been given to the Circle Officer, Chandi Block, Chandi, District- Nalanda

2/7 (respondent no.5) to take steps for settlement of a piece of land appertaining to Thana No.296, Khata No.86, Plot No.2, measuring 5 decimals falling under Mauza- Gokhulpur of Chandi block of Nalanda District in favour of the petitioner.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the law which is applicable for him is policy No.109/71-2034 dated 15.03.1971 according to which, it is well within the power of the Sub-Divisional Officer, to settle the land in favour of the petitioner (being SC category) for the land 5 decimals which is less than 12.5 decimals. Counsel further submits that special power of settlement has been vested in the S.D.O. Counsel submits that S.D.O., Hilsa, Nalanda has passed order in his favour on 16.03.2021, but till date, land has not been settled in his name in-spite of the fact that petitioner has filed representation before the Circle Officer, Chandi, Nalanda which is annexed as Annexure-P/2.

4. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the said policy No.109/71-2034 dated 15.03.1971 is still in existence and under the said policy, power of settlement of land to privilege person has been vested in the S.D.O itself for area 12.5 decimals.

5. Upon perusal of the record, particularly, the order

3/7 passed by the S.D.O., Hilsa, Nalanda dated 16.03.2021 in case No.126 MP/2019, he has recommended for settlement of the land to the Circle Officer, Chandi, Nalanda, but the legislative intent is otherwise. It transpires to this Court that the said policy dated 15.03.1971 is necessary to quote in this case which is as follows:- "ववषय:

ववशेषावधकारizkIr (Privileged Persons) वयवककयोंके साथगैरमजरआ मावलकएवंखासजमीनकीबनदोबसकी करनेकेवनवमकअनुमंडलपदावधकावरयोंको शवककiznku करना। [संखया-4/खा.म.नीतत-109/71-2034 रा.

तदनांक15.03.1971, तबहारसरकार, राजसव एवंभूतमसुधारतवभाग।izs"kd Jh फूलचंद तसंह, सरकारकेउपसतचव।सेवामे, सभी izeaMyh; आयुकत।] राजसवतवभागीयi=kad-5 एल. आर. एल.

ए. 211/70-6561 एल. vkj-] fnukad 24.10.1970 ds dze esa तनदेशानुसारमुझे कहना है तक जमींदारी उनमूलन फलसवरपदेहातीके=ksa मेकृतषयोगयबंजर एवंअनयभूतमएवंजोसरकारमेतनतहतहो गयीहैउसकीबनदोबसतीमेतनमनांतकतवगर केलोगोकोथातमकतादीजातीहै- (क) अनुसूतचतजातत (ख) अनुसूतचतजनजातत (ग) तपछडावगर(सूची-1)

4/7 (घ) कायररतसैतनकतथावैसेसैतनकके पतरवारजोयुदमेबीरगततizkIr तकएहो तथा (ड) पूवीरपातकसतानएवंवमारसेआएहुए शरणाथीरजो1 जनवरी, 1984 कोयाउसके बादभारतमेआएहो। उपयुरकत(घ) कोछोडकरशेषवगोरंकेलोगो साथजमीनकीबनदोबसतीकरनेकी शतकतizR;sd अनुमंडलपदातधकारीको iz दतहै(घ) परवतणरतलोगोके साथ जमीनबंदोबसतीकरनेमेतजलासमाहतार सकमहै। 2.

तबहारfiz तवलेजडपरसनसहोमसटीड टेनेनसीऐकटके अनतगरततवशेषातधकार izk पतवयतकतयोकोवासकापचारदेनेके दौरानयहपायागयाहैतकबहुतसेऐसे वयतकतहैतजनलोगोनेगैरमजरआखास, मातलककागैरमजरआआमजमीनपरभी मकानबनातलयाहै, उनहेतबहारfiz तवलेजड परसनस होम सटीड टेनेनसी ऐकट अनतगरतवासकापचारदेनासंभवनहींहै कयोतकउकतअतधतनयमसरकारमेतनतहत जमीनपरलागूहीनहींहोताहै।इसके तनतमतएकहीउपायहैतकउसजमीनकी बनदोबसतीवैसेलोगोकेसाथकरदीजाय। अनुसूतचत जातत/अनुसूतचत जनजातत/ तपछडावगर-1 आतदकेअनतगरत आनेवालेतवशेषातधकारizk पतवयतकतयोके साथबनदोबसतीlEizfr iz दतशतकतयोके

5/7 अनतगरतसथानीयपदातधकारी(अनुमंडल अतधकारी, समाहतार) करसकतेहैपरनतु अनयJs णीकेतवशेषातधकारizk पतवयतकत केसाथसरकारदाराहीबनदोबसतीकीजा सकतीहै।परनतुइसizfd;k मेकाफीJ म, समयलगेगा।अतःसरकारनेपूणरतवचारतवमशर बाद तवशेषातधकार izk पत वयतकतयोकेसाथजमीनबनदोबसतीकेतलए तनमनiz कारेणशतकतयांiz दतकरनेका तनणरयतलयाहै:- (क) तजसगैरमजरआखासएवंमातलक जमीनपरतवशेषातधकारizk पतवयतकतका मकानबनाहुआहैउसकीबनदोबसतीउस वयतकत साथ कर दी जाय। ऐसी बनदोबसतीकरनेकीशतकतसभीअनुमंडल पदातधकातरयोकोiz दतकीजातीहै। (ख) बनदोबसतीकेदौरानघरएवंसहनकी जमीनअगर12.5 तड.

सेफातजलहोतो उसकीबनदोबसतीमेसरकारकेआदेशकी आवशयकताहोगी। (ग) ऐसीबनदोबसतीमेतवशेषातधकारizk पत वयतकतयोसे12.5 तड.

जमीनकेतलएकोई lykeh नहींलीजायेगी। (घ) तवशेषातधकारizk पतवयतकतकामकान अगरगैरमजरआआमजमीनपरहोगातो उसकीबनदोबसतीउसीहालतमेकीजायेगी जबतकजमीनकीiz कृततबदलगयीहो, और यहजनताकेउपयोगमेनहींहो।तकनतु आमजमीनकीबनदोबसतीकरनेकेपहले

6/7 vke इसतेहारदाराजनताकोसूतचतकरना होगातातककोईभीइसiz सतावकेतवरद आपततदेसकेगे।अगरजमीनआपततरतहत होगीतबहीउसकीबनदोबसतीकीजायेगी। इसतरहतवशेषातधकारizk पतवयतकतयोके साथ गैरमजरआ आम जमीन की बनदोबसती ( मकान तलए) करने का अतधकारiz मंडलीयआयुकतोकोहीहोगा। प= izs तषतहोनेकीतततथसेहीयहआदेश "

लागूसमझाजायेगा।

6. From the said policy, it is crystal clear to the Court that order of settlement has to be made by the S.D.O. himself. In law, settlement and recommendation of the settlement are two different aspects of the matter. It transpires to this Court that the S.D.O. has made recommendation for the settlement, but has not settled himself, whereas, in the policy, permission for settlement has been vested in the S.D.O. himself.

7. Therefore, this Court is remanded the matter before the S.D.O., Hilsa, Nalanda who shall pass further order completely in the light of the policy of 15.03.1971 in which power has been vested in him to settle. It is directed that the S.D.O., Hilsa, Nalanda shall pass order for settlement in favour of the petitioner and then he shall refer the matter to the Circle Officer, Chandi, Nalanda to enter the name of the petitioner in

7/7 the Records of Right.

8. All exercise shall be done within 3 months from the date of production of this order before the S.D.O., Hilsa, Nalanda.

9. Accordingly, with the aforesaid direction, this writ petition stands disposed off.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U