The Patna High Court has recently stated that a plot of property containing a body of water and a temple on it cannot be settled in anyone’s favor, even if it is gairmazarua public land.
According to a division bench of Judge Ashutosh Kumar and Advocate Harish Kumar, “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, Rama Prasad Singh, an ex-army man, had a proposal for settlement of the land made in his favor as acknowledgment for his services to the country. Yet, when nothing was done, he addressed the appropriate authority, who denied his petition. The appellant then appealed the Competent Authority’s decision to the Collector and then to the Commissioner, but his appeals were denied.
The authorities determined that the land in question, which the appellant sought to have settled in his name for a fee, was public land containing a water tank and a temple.
The appellant contended that if the contested public land contained a water tank and a temple, how could the land be afterwards repaired and transferred in the name of one Kamla Kuer, who was named as a respondent in the appeal?
The bench stated that Kaur, who was also named as a party in the writ petition, was not brought to the bench’s attention, possibly because the appellant had only challenged the Commissioner’s refusal to accept his appeal for settlement of the land in question in his favor.
The bench went on to say that there is no evidence to back up his claim that the request for the identical area of land was begun in his favor.
When upholding the Single Judge’s order, the bench stated, “We cannot accept such a remark ipso facto in the absence of any proof in that regard.”
