CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12695 OF 1993 ===== In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ===== 1. Shubh Narayan Pandey @ Manager Pandey 2. Dhrup Pandey Both sons of late Rama Pandey, resident of village Ekma, P.O. & P.S. Ekma, District Saran ----- Petitioners versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Saran 3. The Additional Collector, Saran 4. Sub-Divisional Officer (Saran), Chapra, District Saran 5. Dharam Nath Ram, son of late Basant Ram, resident of village Ekma, P.O. & P.S. Ekma, District Saran ----------- Respondents ===== For the petitioners: Mr. Shravan Kumar, Senior Advocate For the State : Mrs Nividita Nirvikar,GP 16 ===== P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J. The challenge is to the order dated 6.11.1993 passed by the Additional Collector, Saran in Land Encroachment Appeal No. 8/1985. The impugned order is annexure-7 to the writ application. The land in dispute is a plot of land bearing Revisional survey Plot no. 4417 appertaining to khata no. 1467 of an area of 4 kathas and 5 dhurs located in village Ekma, District Saran. As per the assertion made in the writ application the land in dispute belonged to one Raja Saheb Bahadur Reyasat of Salemgarh. By virtue of sada patta dated 8.11.1930 3 kathas of land north of plot no. 4417 was settled with 2 one late Rama Pandey who happens to be the father of the present petitioners. They were put in possession of the land in the year 1930 itself and after the death of the father, petitioners continued to be in possession thereafter. Some dispute arose some time in the year 1970 on an objection having been raised by a karamchari of the area. The matter travelled to the Circle Officer and then an investigation was made at the level of the D.C.L.R. and on due verification of the possession recommendation was made for settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners at the level of the D.C.L.R. The matter was taken up by the Sub- divisional Magistrate who based on the recommendations of the revenue authorities vide a detailed order contained in annexure-3 dated 4.6.1985, ordered for settlement of the land to the extent of 8 decimals each in favour of these two petitioners. 2. Some objection, however, was made to the said settlement by one Dharam Nath Ram, private respondent no.5 to the writ application. But from a perusal of the order passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, the objection was taken into consideration but keeping in mind the provision of section 6© of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act held in favour of the petitioners, respondent no.5 thereafter filed an appeal before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector allowed the appeal of respondent no.5 and held against settlement. 3 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the person aggrieved by such settlement could have been a State authority but no State authority raised any grievance against the settlement then only at the instance of private individual, the appeal was entertained. Not only this he also indicates that a kind of antedated order has come to be passed by the Additional Collector because a petition was filed before the Collector apprehending some foul play and the Collector vide his order dated 3.11.1993 called for the records of the case from the court of Additional Collector and ordered the records to be placed on 15.11.1990 but despite the said order, an order dated 6.11.1993 was passed by the Additional Collector against the petitioners. Additional submission is that the Additional Collector had at no point of time found the basic findings to be erroneous in any manner with regard to the petitioners’ interest and their right for settlement of the land. However, on a plea of the appellant, only based on the ground that he was a kind of parcha holder and had been brought to the land by the petitioners’ forefathers and a Kind of right had also accrued in favour of the appellant i.e. private respondent no.5. 4. The question for consideration before the appellate authority was whether settlement made in favour of the petitioners was in accordance with law or not and whether they had established their right 4 and interest within the ambit of the statute to seek a settlement in their favour. The Additional Collector seems to have been swayed by extraneous consideration. Merely because respondent no.5 asserted himself to be a parch holder and a suit is going on between the parties i.e. the petitioners and the private respondent the issue whether they are valid parcha holders and the occupiers of the land amounting to 7 decimals is still under adjudication. There is no dispute so far these lands are concerned but by virtue of the order of Additional Collector a dispute has even been raised with regard to these piece and parcel of the land. Further no reason has been assigned for interfering with the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate. 5. The writ application is allowed and the order contained in annexure-7 is hereby quashed. The consequence of the order shall flow. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J) PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 5.12.2008 AI/NAFR