IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.13675 of 2008 Satya Narayan Sah, son of Basudeo Sah, resident of Village Bherokhara, P.S. Tajpur, district Samastipur .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate-cum-District Collector, Samastipur 3. The Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Department, Samastipur 4. The Block Development Officer, Tajpur Block, P.S. Tajpur, district Samastipur 5. The Circle Officer, Tajpur Circle, P.S. Tajpur, district Samastipur .. Respondents **** /3/ 02.04.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are going to settle Motipur Sabzi Mandi under Tajpur Circle under the district of Samastipur for a period of one year only against the guideline of Government’s circulars. The settlement should have been made for three financial years. Petitioner had taken settlement of Sabzi Mandi for financial year 2008-2009, which was only for nine and half months. Now, again, vide Memo No. 08/81, dated 18.03.2009, the Circle Officer has issued notice for settlement of Sabzi Mandi for financial year 2009-2010 through open bid. Prayer of petitioner is that settlement earlier made in his 2 favour should be extended for further two financial years instead of it’s resettlement through open bid for another one year. Petitioner’s case is that earlier for similar relief one Sikandar Rai had moved before this Court by filing C.W. J.C. No. 6403 of 2008. That writ application was disposed off by order, dated 20.05.2008, observing that the authorities would not be precluded from settling the Bazar for three years, if it is permissible under the circulars of the State Government on this subject. In spite of that settlements is being made, some times for three months, some time for one year, though there is provision for settlement for three years. In support of his stand the petitioner has placed reliance at Annexure 2, which is an order of the Anchal Adhikari, Tajpur, passed in consultation with the reserve jama committee. By this order, the reserve jama has been fixed for three financial years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this order itself is sufficient to show that reserve jama was fixed for three years and in each year only with 15 per cent enhancement settlement should have continued for three years. 3. I do not find that Annexure 2 any where deals with the matter relating to settlement for three years. Annexure 2 only relates to the issue that reserve jama fixed in a particular year will 3 remain same for consecutive three years and settlement can be made each year with 15% enhancement. In the earlier writ application also no Government’s circulars were brought before the Court in support of this contention that settlement can not be made for less then three years and minimum settlement will be for three financial years. I do not find that any such direction can be issued to the respondents for making settlement of three financial years only as there is no such Government’s circular or guideline. So far the reserve jama is concerned, on that point there is no dispute and it has been admitted in the counter affidavit filed by the State respondent also. 4. Considering this fact, the notice which was issued for settlement of Tajpur Sabzi Mandi through open bid vide notification, contained in Memo No. 08/81, dated 18.03.2009, can be made operational. The respondent authorities may proceed for settlement of Tajpur Sabzi Mandi on the basis of this notification fixing some other date and giving proper notice of it to all concerned. 5. This application is dismissed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )