IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7919 of 2005 Mustaque Ahmad, son of Wokil Ahmad, resident of village- Hathaudi, Tola Mahual, P.S. Hussainganj, District- Siwan. ..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Siwan. 3. The Additional Collector, Siwan. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Siwan. 5. The Circle Officer, Hussainganj, District- Siwan. 6. Imteyaz Ahamad, son of Late Mukhtar Ahmad, 7. Tunus, son of Late Serajuddin Ahmad, Both are resident of village Hathaudi, Tola Mahual, P.S. Hussainganj, District- Siwan. ..Respondent ----------- 2 04.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to SC-21 for the Respondents no. 1 to 5 and Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat for Respondent no.6. The controversy in the writ petition relates to a piece of land which has been settled in favour of Respondent no.6 and which the petitioner has applied for settlement with him after cancellation of the settlement made in favour of Respondent no.6. The writ petition originally came to be filed for a direction to remove the so called encroachment made by Respondent no.6 from the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits on merit that for various reasons the land could not have been settled by the State- Authorities in favour of Respondent no.6, since, he was ineligible for such settlement by the local authorities and only the State Government could make such settlement. He further submits that on a petition filed by him before the 2 Collector, Siwan an enquiry was conducted but the same could not reach its logical conclusion in view of lack of co-operation from the lower District Officials who were not producing the relevant records with regard to settlement in favour of Respondent no.6 before the higher authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that he satisfies the eligibility criteria for such settlement to be made in his favour and in that view of the matter the Respondent-Authorities are obliged to settle the land in question with him after cancelling the settlement made in favour of Respondent no.6. Learned counsel for the State from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents no. 2 to 5, submits that once a settlement rightly or wrongly has been made in favour of Respondent no.6, the position of Respondent no.6 on the land in question cannot be removed summarily. He further submits that some villagers have also filed a Title Suit before the Munsif, Siwan with regard to easementary rights on the land in question which they have claimed to be a general passage for them. In view of the above, he submits that till such time either the State itself reviews the settlement or the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction passes an order, the State-Authorities cannot do much with regard to the relief claimed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the Private Respondent supports the contention of the State and submits that the settlement in his favour has been done after following all the legal requirements 3 and the same has been continuing for over two decades and now he has got right and title over the land in question. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition stands disposed off with a direction to the Respondent- Collector, Siwan to look into the matter and ensure that the inquiry being conducted with regard to the settlement in favour of the Private Respondent no.6 is taken to its logical conclusion and appropriate orders are passed. The parties aggrieved by such action shall be at liberty to move before the appropriate forum. Let the same be done within six months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this order upon the Collector, Siwan. The Collector, Siwan shall ensure that before any order is passed, the parties concerned are given adequate opportunity of hearing. All materials produced by them shall also be taken into consideration. Md. Ibrarul (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)