IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.14663 OF 2008 NAV YATAYAT SAHYOG SAMITEE LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT AMDABAD, POLICE STATION AMDABAD, DISTRICT KATIHAR THROUGH ITS MEMBER DIWAKAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE DURGA PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POLICE STATION AMDABAD, DISTRICT KATIHAR VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KATIHAR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MANIHARI, KATIHAR 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, AMDABAD, DISTRICT KATIHAR 6. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR 7. THE NAV YATAYAT SAHYOG SAMITEE THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DILARPUR, ANCHAL MANIHARI, DISTRICT KATIHAR ……………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******* FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. RATNAKAR AMBASTHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. RAVI VERMA, ADVOCATE ********** 5 29/07/2009 This writ application has been filed claiming that the demands of the respondent contained in Annexure 2 dated 01.04.2008 for payment of second and third instalments for the settlement year 2008-09 should be quashed on the ground that six out of the thirteen ghats settled in favour of the petitioner are non-functional. The case of the petitioner is that infact he was not settled with thirteen ghats rather he was settled only twelve ghats and out of twelve ghats, six ghats have become non-operational. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had moved this Court vide CWJC 2 No. 15155 of 2007 which was disposed of on 07.03.2008 making a similar prayer for the settlement year 2007-08. This Court held that the petitioner has taken the settlement with open eyes and, therefore, he cannot claim that six ghats have become non- operational for the settlement year 2007-08, but at the same time this Court gave liberty to the petitioner to move the authorities to exempt the six ghats for the settlement period of 2008-09. It has been stated on behalf of the State that the petitioner subsequently moved before the District Collector and the District Collector found the claim of the petitioner illogical and illegal. The order by which the claim was rejected is not brought on record, so this Court cannot examine the reasons for rejection. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the order of earlier rejection. In this writ application, the petitioner is claiming remission on the ground that after taking settlement, six ghats had dried up and he was not able to operate the six ghats. This aspect of the matter can only be decided by the Collector and not by this Court. I, therefore, direct the Collector, Katihar to make spot verification and if he finds that the ghats 3 have become non-operational or have dried up, then he would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order at the earliest regarding that aspect of the matter if the petitioner files an application along with a copy of this order before the Collector, Katihar within a period of three weeks from today. The State is always at liberty to grant remission to the settlee on just and proper grounds. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )