IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2823 of 2002 1.RAJ KUMAR THAKUR , S/O- SHRI YAMUNA THAKUR, R/O- VILLAGE – PANTOKA, P.S. – RAXAUL, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN 2. DHRUB THAKUR, S/O- LATE DHANESHI THAKUR, R/O- VILLAGE – SHITALPUR, P.S. – RAXAUL, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, EAST CHAMPARAN 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAKSAUL, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, RAXAUL, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, RAXAUL, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN ----------- 7. 29.01.2009 Heard the parties. Interlocutory Application No. 5598 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of one, Meena Devi for intervening in the matter. Having no objection raised by the other side, the Intervening Application is allowed. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 16.08.2001 as contained in Annexure-8 whereby the decision approving the grant of annual temporary settlement of lease in favour of the petitioners, was cancelled by the Additional Collector (respondent no.2) and directing the Anchal Adhikari (respondent no. 5) to make thorough enquiry with respect to the points taken into consideration by him in his order dated 16.08.2001. - 2 - It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid order was passed without hearing the petitioners. As such, the order deserves to be quashed. It is further submitted that as per order dated 02.06.2001, temporary annual settlement of lease in respect of the land in question, was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said order dated 02.06.2001 as contained in Annexure-6. Pursuant to the said order, petitioners deposited the ‘SALAMI’ Rs. 30,000/- and also annual rent of Rs. 1,500/- vide receipt as contained in Annexure -9 to the supplementary affidavit. He further submits that the lease could not have been cancelled without hearing the petitioner and, therefore, the order contained in Annexure-8 deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as the interveners submits that there is nothing on the record to show that the lease was eventually executed in favour of the petitioner and as such, they cannot claim themselves to be the settlees. Besides the above, it is submitted that as observed in the impunged order dated 16.08.2001 vide Annexure-8 that the proposal to settle of the land in favour of the petitioners, was made without proper enquiry and even without making any local inspection of the land proposal to be - 3 - settled. Learned counsel further submits that on perusal of the order dated 16.08.2001, it would appear that Additional Collector has taken note of the fact that while making recommendation for settlement of the land in favour of the petitioner it has not been stated anywhere about the situation of the land which falls by the side the National Highway. It is also not made clear that the land is under acquisition or not, and therefore, the order dated 16.08.2001 passed by the respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure-8 is legal and valid. It is further submitted that the order contained in Annexures- 6 and 8 are an administrative orders on the proposal for temporary settlement. Considering the submission of the parties and the averments made in the pleadings, it appears that the proposal of temporary annual settlement of the part of plot no. 1751 in favour of the petitioners were approved. Although there is no document on record to show that after depositing the money vide receipt as contained in Annexure-9, any order issued or deed of settlement was executed in favour of the petitioners. Above factual position is not clear from the records as per order contained in Annexures-6 and 8. Therefore, it is not possible to consider the submission of the petitioners that having lease in their favour, the same could not have - 4 - been cancelled without notice to them. In the above circumstances, petitioners are permitted to make a representation before the Collector of the District East Champaran, Motihari within a period of eight weeks alongwith certified copy of the present order. In case, such representation is filed the Collector of the district East Champaran, Motihari shall dispose of the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months on receipt of such representation after giving notice to the parties concerned by a reasoned order in accordance with law. It will be open for the petitioners to make any application for interim orders before the District Collector. The writ application is accordingly, disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)