CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3803 OF 1991 A K Tripathi, J. In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------ Brajraj Prasad Singh son of late Vidya Prasad Singh, resident of Village and P.O. Pandui, P.S. and District – Jehanabad ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Jehanabad. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jehanabad. 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Jehanabad. 5. Shri Rameshwar Pandit son of Sakun Pandit. 6. Shri Ramchandra Pandit son of Sakun Pandit 7. Krishna Ram son of Gaya Ram Nos. 5, 6 and 7 residents of Village and P.O. Pandui, P S and District – Jehanabad ----------------- Respondents For the petitioner: Mr. Madhav Roy. For the respondents : P r e s e n t The Hon`ble Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi By virtue of an order contained in annexure-9 the Anchal Adhikari ordered settlement of land amounting to about 42 decimals relating to C. S. Plot no. 1487, Khata no. 860 with private respondents No. 5 to 7 and issued Parwana to them. This was done according to the petioner behind his back and without any notice to him or being impleaded as party to the said proceeding. In this background the present writ application came to be filed challenging the action of the Anchal Adhikari and approval thereto by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jehanabad. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question is a raiyati land which has been coming in - 2 - possession of his father and thereafter to him the origin of which relates back to 1938. There are many evidence as well as documents to show that the name of the father of the petitioner and even his exists on revenue records to certify the position. But all of a sudden without notice or without any information to the petitioner the order in question has come to be passed. 3. From perusal of the various documents and pleadings made in the writ application, prima facie the petitioner has an arguable case in this regard. No counter affidavit has been filed either by the private respondents or by the State to rebut the factual position stated and narrated in the writ application. Not only this, in view of categorical statement made in para 24 with regard to absence of notice or the petitioner having been impleaded as party to the proceeding, the proceeding is hit by principles of natural justice. 4. The writ application is allowed. The order of settlement contained in annexure-9, made against the petitioner and in favour of private respondents No. 5 to 7, stands quashed. If the respondents are still interested in pursuing the matter it is clarified that they can do so but only after giving notice to the petitioner and opportunity of hearing. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 22nd December,2008. (NAFR) R k Pathak.