Public Land With Water Body And Temple Cannot Be Settled In Anyone's Favour: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has said that a piece of land with a water body and a temple on it cannot be settled in anyone's favour even though it may be gairmazarua public land. 

The division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Harish Kumar observed:

“When a water-body, which is used by the public in general, and a temple, which is accessible to all the devotees, stand on the land, even though it is gairmazarua aam land, the same cannot be settled in anyone’s favour, much less the appellant.”

The appellant, an ex-army man, had a proposal initiated in his favour for settlement of the land as recognition for his services to the country. However, when nothing was being done in this regard, he approached the competent authority, which rejected his petition.The appellant then challenged the decision of the Competent Authority before the Collector and subsequently before the Commissioner, but his appeals were unsuccessful.

The authorities found that the land in question, which the appellant sought to have settled in his name for a price, was public land with a water-tank and a temple standing on it.

The appellant raised a contention that if the disputed public land had a water-tank and a temple on it, then how was it possible for the land to later be corrected and transferred in the name of one Kamla Kuer, who was impleaded as a respondent in the appeal

The bench said Kaur, who was also impleaded as a party in the writ petition, was not put to notice, perhaps because the appellant had only challenged the order of the Commissioner refusing to entertain his plea for settlement of the land in question in his favour.

"It is, thus, only an oral statement of the appellant that the land which he wanted has now fallen in the kitty of respondent No. 7, even though it has a public watertank and a temple," said the court.

The court also said there is no document on record to rely on the averment that the proposal with respect to the same plot of land was initiated in his favour. 

While upholding the order passed by the Single Judge, the bench held, "We cannot, without any evidence in that regard, accept such a statement ipso facto."

Case Title: Rama Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17005 of 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Pat) 28

Click Here To Read/Download Order