Full Judgment
Narayan Roy, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. The orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana and the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka are under challenge whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara as contained in Annexure-3 has been set aside.
3. It appears that the petitioners applied for settlement of wasteland under the provisions of Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Sub-divisional Officer after making inquiry from the Circle Inspector settled the land in question with the petitioners one acre each in exercise of its power under Section 28 of the Act. The order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka saying that the petitioners were not the jamabandi raiyats of the village, in question and, therefore, they were not entitled for settlement of the wasteland in their favour under Section 28 of the Act. The matter was heard in presence of the parties by the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner being satisfied that the petitioners were not jamabandi raiyats of the village held that the prerequisite for settlement of wasteland in favour of the petitioners was not fulfilled as they were not jamabandi raiyats of the village in question and consequently thereof, set aside the order passed by the Sub-divisional, Officer, The petitioners thereafter went in revision before the Divisional Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner after hearing the parties dismissed the revision application reiterating the same view as expressed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka.
4. Section 28 of the Act contemplates that regard shall be had to the following considerations in addition to the principals 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 settle 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.
6. The Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner have categorically recorded a finding that the petitioners are neither permanent residents of the village nor they are jamabandi raiyats and, therefore, the power as envisaged under Section 28 of the Act was not exercisable in respect of them. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the orders impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner.
7. In the result, therefore, this application is allowed but. no order as to costs.