IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15166 of 2007 1. Kapildeo Mandal S/o Biklal Mandal 2. Bachani Devi W/o Sukhdeo Mandal resident of village Kathira P.S. Gopalpur Dist. Bhagalpur Versus Petitioners 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Bhagalpur 3. The S.D.O.Naugachia, Dist. Bhagalpur 4. The D.C.L.R. Naugachia, Bhagalpur 5. Circle Officer, Gopalpur Bhagalpur 6. Satyadeo Sharma 7. Ramdeo Sharma 8. Shyamdeo Sharma 9. Nigam Sharma 10. Sahjanand Sharma 11. Anil Kumar Sharma, All (6 to 11) sons of Late Bhagwat Sharma 12. Bijay Kumar Sharma 13. Mukesh Kumar Both sons of Late Jagdish Sharma All are resident of Village Gopalpur P.O.Saidpur P.S. Gopalpur Dist. Bhagalpur Respondents ----------- 2 04.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant counsel to learned Additional Advocate General no.1 for the respondents no. 1 to 5. We do not feel that necessity of issuing notice to respondent no.6 in view of the nature of the order we propose to pass. We have perused the materials and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner no.1 and Sukhdeo Mandal (wife of petitioner no.2) had filed applications for settlement of the lands in question. By order dated 26.12.1998 (Annexure 1), passed by respondent no.3, in Land Settlement Case no. 1/1990-91 Khesra no. 2863, measuring an area 19 decimals, appertaining to khata no. 3611, Thana no.11, situate at village Saidpur, district Naugachia, was directed to settle lands in favour of - 2 - two applicants. The consequential Parwana was issued by the authority, photocopy of which is annexure 2 and 2/1 to the writ petition. Respondents no. 6 to 13 preferred Land Settlement Appeal no. 40/1999-2000 (Satyadeo Sharma vs. State of Bihar) which has been allowed by order dated 9.8.2007 (Annexure 3),passed by respondent no.2, whereby the said order dated 26.12.1998 (Annexure 1) has been set aside, and impugned herein. It has been stated in the impugned order that the petitioners herein are already owners of 7.67 acres of land, and are not in the category of landless persons. Therefore, there was no justification for settlement of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners. This appears to me to be a valid ground for cancellation of the settlement. There is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (S. K. Katriar, J) shahid