IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11875 of 2008 1. MITHILESH KUMAR YADAV, SON OF SRI YOGENDRA YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SUGAUNA, P.O-BASAULI, ANCHAL- RAHIKA, P.S.-RAHIKA, DISTRICT-MADHUBANI. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 3. THE COLLECTOR OF THE DISTRICT (D.M.), MADHUBANI. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, RAHIKA, MADHUBANI, DISTRICT- MADHUBANI. ----------- 5. 17.05.2010 There is a very detailed order recorded by a Bench of this Court on 24.09.2008. State was directed to explain the basis for demanding additional amount in terms of Annexure-4 to the writ application. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State but to say the least, the same is far from satisfactory. It only states that after the settlement of the Sairat, matter was referred to the Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner taking into consideration a circular dated 8.01.1982 of the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms enhanced the reserve Jama by 15%. A reading of the said circular which has been produced today on behalf of State indicates that in matter of reserve Jama for settlement of a Sairat authorities will keep in mind the reserve Jama of the last 3 years. It further indicates that in no case revision less than 15 % would be called for. From Annexure-5, it is evident that the reserve Jama 2 has been fixed by the concerned Sub-divisional Magistrate on the basis of the highest bid amount for the previous year. The last bid for the year 2007-08 was Rs.9.20 lacs and the petitioner was highest bidder with offer of Rs.9.21 lacs. It is not a case that in the last 3 years the minimum reserve Jama had not been revised. Even if the argument of the State is accepted, this revision will relate to future settlement and that amount will have to be communicated by the Revenue authorities before they go for the fresh settlement. After the bid had been decided in favour of the petitioner, a so-called circular cannot be invoked for effecting a revision and fixing additional liability on the petitioner. Obviously, the said circular has been misconstrued and misapplying for the year of settlement in question, which is 2008- 09. The additional demand made on the petitioner in terms of Annexure-4 is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. V.K. Pandey (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)