IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.31 of 1996. ========================================================== Narain Roy, son of Chima Mahto, resident of Village – Jafar Nagar, P.S. Muffasil, District – Munger .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Collector, Munger, 3. The Land Reform Deputy Collector, Munger, 4. The Circle Officer, Sadar, Munger .... .... Respondents. ========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ambar Nath Banerji, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. J.S. Arora, SCG and Mr. Ajay Kumar, AC to SCG. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE The 29th April 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Learned Advocate Mr. Ambar Nath Banerji has appeared before me. He has submitted that the petitioner has collected the papers from him. He, therefore, does not represent the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. J.S. Arora has appeared for the respondent. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is filed by one Narain Roy, resident of Village – Jafar Nagar, District – Munger. The matter at dispute is the settlement of land of Plot No. 889, Khesara No. 764/621 admeasuring 22 decimals of Village - Jafar Nagar, settled in favour of the petitioner. The order of settlement is not brought on the record. Patna High Court CWJC No.31 of 1996 29-04-2011 2 It appears that by order dated 24th November 1992 made in Misc. Case No. 1/92-93 by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms after hearing the parties, the Circle Officer, the Sub Divisional Officer, the Block Development Officer, the Circle Inspector, the Mukhiya and the villagers, settlement of the aforesaid land made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The District Collector recorded a finding that the disputed land was the village pond and was being used by the residents of the village. In the opinion of the Dy. Collector, the said land ought not to have been settled in favour of the petitioner. He, therefore, directed to cancel the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Land Reform Appeal No. 16/94 before the District Magistrate, Munger. The same was rejected on 11th October 1995. Therefore, the present petition. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by the authorities below, no case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. Patna High Court. The 29th April 2011. NAFR/ Dilip. ( R.M. Doshit, CJ )