Settlement claim rejection based solely on an interim Supreme Court order, without independent reasons, is unsustainable.

The petitioner, a registered religious trust, claimed long-standing use of 9½ decimals of land comprised in Plot No. 695/1097, Khata No. 204, Village Cantt, Hazaribagh, for performing the religious function known as “Panduk Shila” for followers of the Digambar Jain faith.

In 1986, it applied for settlement of the land. The application was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, and the petitioner deposited ₹38,000 towards 10% of the scheduled salami in 1990.

The Divisional Commissioner subsequently approved the proposed settlement, fixing salami at ₹38,000 and annual rent at ₹760, subject to renewal.

By order dated 10 May 2012, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the settlement claim, principally relying on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8519 of 2006.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court subsequently disposed of the said proceedings on 31 January 2018, directing consideration of renewal cases and formulation of a policy concerning removal, re-allocation and regularisation of religious structures.

Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s settlement claim solely on the basis of the interim order passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 8519 of 2006, without recording independent reasons on the petitioner’s entitlement?

Whether, in view of the prior recommendations and approval for settlement, the petitioner’s claim was required to be reconsidered by the competent authority after the disposal of the Supreme Court proceedings?

The Court exercised its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the legality and reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner’s order.

It applied the principle that an administrative authority must independently consider the relevant facts and record reasons for rejecting a claim; reliance solely on an interim judicial order, without determining the claimant’s substantive entitlement, is insufficient.

The Court also considered the directions issued by the Supreme Court on 31 January 2018 in SLP (Civil) No. 8519 of 2006 concerning examination of renewal cases and formulation of a policy for removal, re-allocation and regularisation of religious places.

The Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 was relevant to the transfer of administrative responsibility to the State of Jharkhand.

The Court found that the petitioner’s settlement claim had progressed through several stages: the Deputy Commissioner had recommended settlement, the petitioner had deposited the prescribed amount, and the Divisional Commissioner had approved the proposal.

The Deputy Commissioner’s own pleadings in the contempt proceedings indicated that settlement would follow upon State Government approval, thereby demonstrating that the authorities had earlier treated the petitioner’s claim as prima facie meritorious.

Although the State contended that the petitioner was an encroacher and that proceedings had been initiated in 1982–83, the impugned order contained no independent finding establishing why the petitioner was disentitled to settlement.

The Court held that the interim Supreme Court order could not, by itself, constitute a sufficient reason for rejecting the claim, particularly after the Supreme Court proceedings had been disposed of and no applicable State policy was shown to exist.

The order was therefore legally unsustainable and required reconsideration by the competent authority.

The matter was remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, for fresh consideration in light of the Court’s observations, with liberty to call representatives of the petitioner if necessary.

The Deputy Commissioner was directed to take a fresh decision within 12 weeks from receipt or production of a copy of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed and disposed of.