IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9323 of 2008 MANOJ KUMAR Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : M/S. Jayant Kr. Karn & H. K. Karn. For the Respondents: Mr. Sarvadeo Singh ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 18th July, 2008. We heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed on 22nd April, 2008. 2. The Tribunal considered the matter thus : “ On perusal of the record, we find that respondent no. 5, namely, Abhay Kumar was son of Sri Parma Nand Yadav. Judicial notice can be taken that Yadavs in the State of Bihar belonged to OBC category. If so, the Certificate of competent authority was not needed. In any case, the Block Development Officer issued a Certificate dated 13th June, 2001 (Annexure R 5/6 filed with written statement of private respondent) certifying that the said Abhay Kumar belonged to Yadav community classified as Backward Community. Admittedly, the last date for submission of document was 20th June, 2001. Therefore, we are unable to find fault with the decision of the Department on this count. The second ground raised by the applicant is also not tenable. The reason is that the respondent No. 5 came to own and possess 2.41 acres of land by way of mutual family arrangement which was mutated in his name vide Mutation Case No. 5/2001-2002 dated 20th June, 2001. The respondent no. 5 has also filed rent receipt dated 22nd June, 2001 as contained in Annexure- R5/11. As regards the registration, the law is well-settled that the property which devolves on the members of the family by way of family arrangement/settlement is exempted from registration. The respondent No. 5 has correctly placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme - 2 - Court in the case of Amteshwar Anand Vs. Virender Mohan Singh and others; AIR 2006 SC 151. There are other decisions as well laying down the law that family settlement should not be disturbed on technical grounds. The Department has pleaded before us that the respondent no. 5 had secured higher marks in the Matriculation Examination as against the applicant; that the respondent no. 5 was resident of the same village; that the respondent No. 5 had adequate means of livelihood; and the respondent no. 5 belongs to OBC category. Thus, the Department felt satisfied with the candidature of respondent no. 5 and he was made to take charge of the post.” 3. Consideration of the matter by the Tribunal has no legal flaw justifying interference by us in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-