IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8180 of 2010 SHAHPUR PRAKHAND MATSYAJIVI SWABLAMBI SAHKARI SAMITI LTD., THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, BAJRANGI CHOUDHARY S/O SRI GABAHIR CHOUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE - PRASONDA TOLA KARELA, P.S.-SHAHPUR, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR (ARRAH).. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA PRAMANDAL, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR, ARRAH. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR, ARRAH. 5. SRI UMA SHANKAR CHOUDHARY, S/O SRI BHOLA CHOUDHARY,R/O VILLAGE-SUHIYA, P.S. - SHAHPUR DISTRICT - BHOJPUR. .. Respondetns ----------- 07/ 27-10-2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents. Petitioner is aggrieved by the settlement made with the private respondent of Suhiya Bhagar Sairat/Jalkar under the Revenue Department. The main grievance is that the bid ought to have been made on each Wednesday. It is also submitted that although the petitioner-society filed an application making a higher offer, the concerned authority did not give them opportunity to pursue the application made by them. The order sheet as contained in Annexure- 4 indicates that the first date for settlement was fixed on 24.02.2010 and thereafter the Additional Collector fixed the date which has been mentioned in the order sheet finally on 23-03.2010. The petitioner filed an application for taking the settlement. On the same date three 2 private person including respondent no.5 appeared and participated in the bid. When the bid was held the names of the petitioner-society was called, however no body appeared to pursue the matter on behalf of the Society. Next date for bid was fixed on 25-03-2010, on that date also no one represented the petitioner-society to pursue the matter, which makes it clear that the filing of the subsequent application was only an attempt to thwart the settlement by the petitioner-society. The society did not deposit even a single paisa by way of advance to show their intention with respect to grant of the settlement. In the circumstances, it can only be said that the petitioner-society failed to pursue the matter. The second aspect is that the settlement has been made for the period March, 2010 to March 2011. Only four to five months are left for the period of settlement to conclude. In the circumstances, it would be unfair to displace the private respondents after they have made investment for the period 2010-11. The petitioner-society should be vigilant in future and make their offer within time. This writ application is thus dismissed. A.H./ ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )