IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 10548 of 2009 Mahant Sagar Das, Chela of late Mahant Mani Ram Das, resident of Mohalla – Chakdiwan, Sheikhpura, P S – Sheikhpura, Dist – Sheikhpura - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2 The District Magistrate, District – Sheikhpura at Sheikhpura 3 The District Development Commissioner, District – Sheikhpura at Sheikhpura 4 The Subdivisional Officer, Subdivision – Sheikhpura, District – Sheikhpura 5 The Circle Officer, Circle – Sheikhpura, Town & District - Sheikhpura - Respondents ----------- 3 09.04.2010 It is unfortunate that such disputes are made to arise by the State where there is no dispute. State refuses to take note of judgments and considers itself to be a law unto itself. Pleadings being complete, with consent of parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The petitioner was settled with substantial piece of land at Sheikhpura which was then Subdivision of District – Munger by the then landlord before the vesting of zamindari. That is not in dispute. After the vesting of zamindari, in the year 1956, State also made a settlement of that entire piece of land which is over five acres in favour of the petitioner and Jamabandi was, accordingly, created. Petitioner’s right and possession continued. In 1994, steps for cancellation of Jamabandi were taken by the district authorities. This brought the petitioner to this Court who filed CWJC No 3261 of 1994. After hearing the parties, the writ petition was allowed by order dated 07.03.1995 (Annexure-4). In the said order, it was clearly noticed that there was a settlement first made by the ex landlord and then after vesting of zamindari by the State. In the counter affidavit, 2 the settlement, as made by the State, was not denied but what was denied was that the settlement, as made by the ex landlord, was not in accordance with law. That plea for cancellation of the present jamabandi was taken to be a too spacious plea to be accepted for the simple reason that the State having made the settlement and created the jamabandi, it could not have travelled to period prior to that settlement and then cancelled the jamabandi. Thus, State was restrained in cancelling the jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. That was in 1995. In 2009, the present writ petition was filed alleging that all of a sudden, the District Magistrate, Sheikhpura (Sheikhpura now having become a district) announced that as a part of beautification of Sheikhpura Town, a part of the land of the petitioner would be taken up for beautification and establishing a public park with a pond. Petitioner’s objections were not heeded and then the writ petition was filed. Status quo order was passed though the petitioner makes a grievance that notwithstanding status quo, the Collector has continued with the work. Be that as it may, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State. In the counter affidavit, the same old story is repeated. It is again said that no settlement could have been made in favour of the petitioner. That the settlement was made is not denied. The situation remains the same and identical to what was there in 1995 when the earlier writ petition was allowed. It is unfortunate that orders of this Court, passed on contest, are not respected by the district authorities. We expect that rule of law would prevail and 3 so long a judgment is there moreso inter parties, all parties are bound to obey the same. The Collector of the district being no exception. He represents the Government and is not independent of the Government. If the Government is bound by a judgment so is the Collector. That being the position, I have no option but to allow the writ petition and direct the district authority including the Collector of the district – Sheikhpura to remove himself from the property of the petitioner and restore the property to the petitioner in the shape in which they had taken over possession. That should be done within one month from the date of presentation of a copy of this order before the Collector, Sheikhpura. However, the State has liberty to go ahead with its programme only upon acquiring the property in a lawful manner. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)