IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11219 of 2003 SARYU PRASAD YADAV, son of Late Kailash Prasad, Mukhiya of Gam Panchayat Maskaur, P.S.- Maskaur, District – Nawada ……………………………………………………….….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. District Magistrate, Nawada, 3. Addl. Collector, Revenue, Nawada, 4. Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Rajauli, Nawada, 5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli, Nawada, 6. Circle Officer, Sirdilha, Nawada, 7. Circle Inspector, Sirdila, Nawada, 8. Halka Karmchari, Halka No. 4, Nawada, and 9. Ram Swarup Prasad Yadav, son of Bundi Prasad Yadav, R/o Village – Bholakurha, P.S. – Sirdilha, Nawada ……………. Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Abhinabh Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the State:- Mr. Maruin Nath Roy, AC to SC XI. For Respondent No. 9:- Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.P.N. Shahi, and Mr. B.K. Tiwari, Advocates. ------------- 4. 08.09.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 9. State of Bihar and Respondent No. 9 have filed counter affidavits. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 15.04.2003 passed by the respondent no. 4, as contained in Annexure-1, whereby 1.51 acre of land of Village Noni, Thana no. 36, Khata No. 84, Plot No. 546 has been settled in favour of the respondent no. 9 under the policy of the State with regard to such settlement in favour of 2 the army personnel. Petitioner, who is the Mukhiya of the Maskaur Gram Panchayat, has challenged the aforesaid settlement on the ground that the same has been erroneously done in favour of the respondent no. 9. It had been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent no. 9 was not a landless person, which is a condition precedent, according to the existing rules / instructions of the Government, for making settlement of the land in favour of an army personnel and, thus, the land ought not to have been settled in his favour. Further contention was that this land is Gairmazarua Anabad Bihar Sarkar (as described in the survey record of rights), therefore, meeting of Gram Sabha for the purpose of settlement should have been held. That having not been done, the settlement concerned is fit to be quashed. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon a Government Memo dated 24.08.1990 issued by the then Commisisoner, Land Reforms addressed to all the Divisional Commissioners as well as the Collectors etc. Learned counsel contended that it is manifest therefrom that the condition precedent 3 for the settlement of the land in favour of the army personnel was that they must be a landless person, meaning thereby that they were not possessing any land or house previously. State has filed counter affidavit. The relevant policy of the Government has been brought on record as Annexure-D. Learned counsel for the State submitted that from perusal of Clause 2(Ka) of the aforesaid circular it would be manifest that the army personnel, who are still in service, can be settled with two acres of culturable land and 12.5 decimals land for construction of house. However, in Clause 2(Chha) of the aforesaid circular, this has been added that if the army personnel concerned is already having land in his name then such land has to be deducted from the permissible area of land to be settled so that the total area may not exceed the maximum limit of land which could be settled in his favour. It has been contended that all the procedures have been followed in proceedings concerned. The respondent no. 9 was found to be already in possession of 0.49 acre of land as ancestral property and, thus, the same was deducted out of the total 4 maximum limit of two acres of land, which could be settled in favour of a person and ultimately 1.51 acre of land was settled. Further submission was that the Gram Sabha was also held on the issue and a copy of the relevant proceeding has been appended to the counter affidavit as Annexure -G. It was also urged that the petitioner was having personal interest in the land and on earlier occasion, he had tried to forcibly dispossess the respondent no. 9. The State authorities had to make special efforts to foil that attempt on the eve of Ramnavmi. Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceedings were also drawn against the petitioner and several other persons. An order to that effect stands appended to the writ application as Annexure-5. It was next submitted that by the Memo No. 1386 Ra dated 24.08.1990, certain existing provisions as per Clause 2(Gha) of the earlier circular was partially amended stating therein that the army personnel, who have already retired from service may also apply for settlement of land for residential purpose on the pre-condition that they are landless persons. Contention is that that amendment would affect the settlements to be offered in the names of the retired 5 army personnel and not the army personnel, who are still in service. It is an admitted position that the respondent no. 9 applied for settlement of the land in his favour for cultturable land and also at the time when he was still serving in the army. Respondent No. 9 has filed a counter affidavit also and more or less at the time of hearing of this case has followed the submissions made on behalf of the State. In view of the aforesaid I am of the opinion that the petitioner failed to point out any irregularity in the order of settlement made in favour of the respondent no. 9 rendering it liable to be set aside. The aforesaid Memo dated 24.08.1990 would only be affecting the retired army personnel and not the respondent no. 9. Respondent no. 9 has applied for settlement of cultivable land, as would be apparent from Annexure-C. It would also be manifest therefrom that he had applied for the same when he was still in service. Though he has stated in the petition that he is a landless person but he was found to be holding 0.49 acre of ancestral land and the same has been deducted and finally in place of two acres, 6 only 1.51 acres of land was settled in his favour. The Gram Sabha had also been held on this issue as is apparent from Annexure-G to the counter affidavit to which no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner. It is also apparent from the records of this case that the petitioner was having some personal grudge against the respondent no. 9 and had made an effort to dispossess him leading to initiation of Section 144 Cr.P.C. proceedings. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting interference in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. As a result, this writ application fails and the same is dismissed. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )