Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Principles to be followed in settling waste land or vacant holding- In making settlement of waste land or vacant holdings regard shall be had to the following considerations in additions to the principles recorded in the record-or-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 wste land 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. COMMENTS Section 28- Mandatory provisions-for settling waste land and vacant holding- These are to be followed necessarily- All the prerequisites for settling waste land and vacant holding cannot 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. There was no any infirmity in the orders impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner.{Sheikh Allauddin v. State of Bihar,2000 (3) BLJ 95 (Pat)}. Section 28- Mandatory provisions- For settling waste land and vacant holdings- All the pre-requisites for settling waste land and vacant holdings for settlement must be a permanent raiyat or must be permanent resident of the village and they are recorded in the records of right. There was no any infirmity in the orders impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner.{ Sheikh Allauddin v. State of Bihar, 2000 (3) BLJ 95 (Pat)}. Section 25- Settling of waste and vacant land- The petitioners were neither permanent resident of the villages nor they were jamabandi raiyats and therefore the power as envisaged under section 28 of the Act was not exercisable in respect of them. There was no any infirmity in the order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner. {Sheikh Allauddin v. State of Bihar, 2000 BLJR 1084 (Pat)}. Section 28- Settling of waste and vacant land- Petitioners neither permanent residents nor jamabandi raiyats- Decision not allowing the settlement- Not warrants any interference- The petitioners were neither permanent residents of the village nor they were 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, there was no any infirmity in the orders impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner.{Nandgopal Bhadra v. State of Bihar,2000 (3) BLJR 1084(Pat)}. There are ceratian consideration as specified in Section 28 of the Santal Pargana Tenancy act which have to be kept in view in making any settlement of the waste land in the district of Santal Pargana but the remedy if any against the contravention of those consideration is to file an application under section 32 of the Act and not by way of any independent suit. The order passed on the application under section 32 subject to any appeal and revision under section 57,58 and 59 of the Act shall as operate as final. {Jahanbi Devi v. Bodi Mistry, 1965 BLJR Lxiv (Sum) }. Section 27,28,59 and 61- Settlement of Waste land- Order passed by sub- Divisional Officer in Favour of non- jamabandi raiyat, after following procedure prescribed in Section 27 and 28 not illegal. Revisional Authority cancelled that settlement on a wrong notion of law and Appellate Authority affirmed that order of cancellation merely on ground that it does not amount to failure of justice- Committed manifest effort of law- Both these orders, thus, unsustainable . Settlement of waste land in favour of non- jamabandi raiyat is not against law. {Mihir kumar jha v. State of Bihar, 1997 (1) BLJR 172: 1997 (1) PLJR 716: 1997 BBCJ 364}