IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14558 of 2003 UMESH KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner: Mr. Barun Kr. Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Lalit Narayan Jha, Adv. For the State: S.C.(3) ----------- 06/ 18/02/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he is a displaced person of the Koshi Project and that his lands fell within the two ‘Bandhs”. He was issued a certificate to that effect by the Rehabilitation Officer on 31.12.1984. It is his further case that his selection came to be approved by a selection committee as communicated by an order dated 29.1.1989. The show cause notice issued to him on 27.6.2003 did not deal with the issue of the selection committee at all, but only questioned his land oustee certificate. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. Paragraph-12 of the same states that the Rehabilitation Officer stated that the petitioner’s land was never acquired. The respondents seek to question their own order dated 31.12.1984 stating to the contrary. The counter affidavit then goes on to state that the petitioner resides in between the two ‘Bandhs” of Koshi and when the water level rises, he seeks protection of a safe place. 2 This Court fails to understand what further is left to be considered. The counter affidavit is completely silent on the assertion in the writ petition that the petitioner came to be appointed by a selection committee. The impugned order of termination dated 27.6.2003, the second supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents reinforces the submissions in the first counter affidavit that it were the residents between the two embankments who were entitled to the extent of reservation permissible under the scheme. Last but not the least, the impugned order dated 27.6.2003 does not at all consider the only ground being urged on behalf of the respondents in their counter affidavit that the land oustee certificate of the petitioner was a fabricated document. Forgery is a question of fact which has to be enquired into and a finding of fact arrived at. A ground which is not mentioned in the impugned order cannot be supplemented by a counter affidavit. So long as the land oustee certificate dated 31.12.1984 is not cancelled or revoked with a positive indication of the of the nature of its forgery, the impugned order dated 27.6.2003 is not sustainable. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Division Bench order passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1380/99 dealing also with a case of a land oustee rehabilitated under the same and subsequently thrown out when he has been directed to be reinstated in service. The impugned order dated 27.6.2003 and the consequential order dated 4.7.2003 are set aside. The writ application stands allowed. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)