IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO. 8662 OF 2003 YASVANT KUMAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE PHUL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE NEHRA, POLICE STATION MANIGANCHHI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ..............................PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER –CUM- INCHARGE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, BIRAUL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BIRAUL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 4. JATA SHANKAR MANDAL, SON OF RAM KHELAWAN MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GOVINDPUR, POLICE STATION BIRAUL, DISTRICT DARBHANGA 5. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA ......................................................................................RESPONDENTS ************* 6 28/07/2010 This matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the parties. The petitioner has challenged Annexure-1 to the writ application by which the Circle Officer, Biraul, Darbhanga by order dated 29.04.2003 has settled the palm trees in favour of respondent no. 4, Jata Shankar Mandal. The order indicates that Jata Shankar Mandal applied for the settlement of palm trees purportedly growing over Khata No. 49, C.S. Plot No. 79 (R.S. Plot No. 218) measuring 90 decimals. This land is a long strip and is described as a „BANDH‟ in the khatiyan. It has been mentioned in the order sheet that there are 34 palm trees over the said BANDH. The Circle Officer has further noted that there has been an enquiry and thereafter settlement has been made in favour of respondent no. 4 for a sum of Rs. 1125/-. 2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as it is specifically submitted that the palm trees are in fact not growing over C.S. Plot No. 79 which belongs to the State of Bihar, rather 34 trees are to be found over the plot of lands on either sides of the BANDH which admittedly belong to the petitioner. The petitioner has been settling these trees right from the year 1960 onwards and has been paying excise duty to the concerned authorities which would be apparent from Annexure-6 series. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 in which it has been stated that respondent no. 4 took other respondents in collusion and got the impugned land and palm trees settled with him. It has been stated at paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that the settlement process was not properly followed and the Anchal Officers and L.R.D.C., Biraul also did not consider his representations and objections. It is the further stand of the State that the GAIR MAZARUA AAM land was vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. A supplementary counter affidavit was also filed by the respondent no. 5, the District Magistrate, Darbhanga when he was asked to bring on record the materials to show that the State Government had been settling and dealing with the trees standing over the lands in question i.e. C.S. Plot No. 79 earlier to the order as 3 contained in Annexure-1. The documents which have been produced are the Sairat Register of 2009-10 and the settlement made after 2002 to different persons which have all been objected to by the petitioner. In other words, there is absolutely no material to indicate that the State Government was settling the trees in question prior to 2002. The petitioner, on the other hand, has been able to demonstrate that he had been settling the trees which were standing over his plots of land, which has been accepted by the State in the counter affidavit. I may refer specifically to paragraph 20 of the supplementary counter affidavit which is in reply to paragraph 10 of the writ application. In the writ application, it is stated that the R.S. map of the village shows that on both sides of the BANDH aforesaid, the lands of the petitioner‟s family are situated. On the northern side of the BANDH, petitioner‟s has plot nos. 195, 198, 199 and 205 whereas in the southern side of the BANDH, the plot nos. 293, 294, 234 and 230 exists. In reply thereof, it is said that “having the lands by both the sides of the BANDH bearing Plot Nos. 195, 198, 199, 205, 293, 294, 234 & 230 does not create and confer right on the petitioner upon the impugned land”. It is clarified by the Court that the petitioner is NOT claiming any rights over the BANDH situated on C.S. Plot No. 79 which even according to the writ petitioner belongs to the State of 4 Bihar. The petitioner merely disputes that there are palm trees standing over C.S. Plot No. 79. Prima facie, it appears that the State Government was not even aware of the fact that the said palm trees were situated over C.S. Plot No. 79, rather it was at the instance of Jata Shankar Mandal that the said proceeding had been initiated. This Court, therefore, quashes the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 dated 29.04.2003. As far as the main dispute i.e. the settlement of palm trees for the successive years is concerned, this Court would prima facie observe that in fact the State had not been dealing with the settlement of the palm trees earlier to 2002. The question as to whether the State would have the right to settle these trees in future, would basically depend on the fact as to whether there are any trees standing over the lands of the State of Bihar i.e. C.S. Plot No. 79 of Khata No. 49, measuring 90 decimals which has been described in the revisional survey khatiyan as plot no. 218 measuring 1.38 acres. In the circumstances, I direct that the District Judge, Darbhanga should appoint any Judicial Officer for the purposes of making local inspection. The cost of such local inspection i.e. traveling cost etc. would be borne by 5 the petitioner and the State, half and half, to the tune of Rs. 500/- each. The local inspection should be made on any Sunday fixed by the District Judge, Darbhanga. The petitioner, the Circle Officer, Biraul, Darbhanga, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Darbhanga and the Collector, Darbhanga are duty bound to take steps to find out the date fixed by the District Judge, Darbhanga for the purposes of local inspection. The petitioner is directed to deposit the cost for communicating this order to the District Judge, Darbhanga through fax within a period of two weeks from today. The State is also required to provide a local Amin or any other Amin to accompany the Judicial Officer for the purposes of local inspection. The Judicial Officer who will conduct the local inspection should send a copy of the report of local inspection to the Collector, Darbhanga and the petitioner on the address given by them. The parties will act in accordance with the report of the Judicial Officer so submitted. In the result, this application is allowed to the extent indicated above. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )