IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12919 of 2008 1. BIPATU DUSADH , son of Late Jokhan Dusadh; 2. Sudama Dusadh, son of late Jokhan Dusadh; 3. Ram Briksha Dusadh, son of late Bechan Dusadh; All residents of village-Lasarhi, P.S. Chand, District-Kaimur at Bhabua …………. …………… Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Development, Govt of Bihar, Patna; 2. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua 3. The Additional Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Bhabua; 5. The Circle Officer, Chand, Kaimur at Bhabua 6. Vijay Mohan Singh, son of late Shiv Baran Singh, resident of village- Lasarhi, P.S.- Chand, District:- Kaimur at Bhabua ……………….. ……….. Respondents. ----------- 3. 14.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the state. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 5 which includes Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua, Additional Collector, Sub Divisional Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua and Circle Officer Chand, Kaimur at Bhabua. Prayer of the petitioners is for quashing the order dated 03.06.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua in Land Settlement Case No. 01 of 1988 & 02 of 1988. By the impugned order, the settlement made in favour of the father of the petitioners in the year, 1988-89 has been cancelled without issuing any notice to the petitioners, without providing any opportunity to show cause and without their being any reason for cancellation of their settlement. It has not been 2 denied in the counter affidavit that lands of plot No. 103 recorded under Khatra No. 35 situated in village-Lasrahi, District- Kaimur at Bhabua measuring 3 decimals, recorded as ANABAD BIHAR SARKAR , was settled in favour of fathers of petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 and in the name of petitioner No. 3 in Settlement Case No. 01 of 1998 & 2 of 1998. From the counter affidavit, it also transpires that at that time, no objection was raised by any one in Land settlement Case No. 1/1988-89 & 2/1988-89 and by order dated 25.01.1989, settlement was made. Not a single person from the locality raised any objection till 2007. For the first time, one Bijay Mohan Singh raised an objection against settlement made in 1989 stating that land settled is a public road and it should be cancelled. On this complaint, an inquiry was made but the first inquiry of the Anchal Adhikari does not indicate that it was a public road and there was any inconvenience caused to any one on account of settlement. However, Bijay Mohan Singh exercised his influence over the local authorities and a fresh direction was issued to the Magistrate for conducting an inquiry and this time, another report was submitted, in favour of the complainant, Bijay Mohan Singh. On the basis of this report, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, without initiating any proceeding for cancellation settlement and red cards, issued in favour of the petitioners, both settlement and red cards were directed to be cancelled. 3 The law is settled that once a government land is settled in favour of the landless persons, red cards are issued and with respect to settled land, name of settee is mutated, he becomes raiyat of the land. It has not been disputed by the state-respondents that rents are being paid by the petitioner and the same is being accepted by the state government. In this circumstance, If the settlement was to be cancelled, then it was necessary for the authority or anyone to get the settlement be declared illegal by a competent court, and then cancel it. Since, it was not done; the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 03.06.2008 passed in Land Settlement Case No. 01 of 1988 & 02 of 1988 is quashed. This application is allowed. The respondent-authorities are restrained from interfering with possession of the petitioner, in any way, unless settlement is held to be illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction. akv/ ( Mridula Mishra, J )