IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5045 of 2003 1. UDAY BHAGAT Son of Late Ram Nandan Bhagat, 2. Jag Narayan Bhagat Son of Late Ram Nandan Bhagat, 3. Lakhiya Devi Widow of Late Ram Nandan Bhagat, All resident of Village Gangahar, P.S.-Mali Anchal Nabinagar, District-Aurangabad. . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR Through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2. District Magistrate, Aurangabad 3. Ram Prasad Paswan Son of Late Sitaram Paswan 4. Pyare Ram Son of Late Bal Kishun Ram 5. Doman Ram Son of Late Bal Kishun Ram 6. Ganuari Paswan Son of Late Chalitra Paswan 7. Ram Pratap Paswan Son of Late Sita Ram Paswan 8. Halkhori Paswan Son of Late Ram Janam Paswan 9. Soharai Paswan Son of Late Bal Kisun Paswan 10. Radhe Shyam Thakur Son of Late Sohan Thakur 11. Bishun Thakur Son of Late Sohan Thakur 12. Sheodhari Paswan Son of Sheo Pujan Paswan All resident of Village Igunahi P.S. Mali Anchal Nabinagar District Aurangabad. . . . Respondents. For the Petitioners : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anwar Karim, AC to SCV ----------- 4/ 30.07.2009 Heard Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anwar Karim, learned counsel for the State. Respondent nos. 3 to 9 and 12 have appeared by filing Vakalatnama but none is present to represent them at the time of hearing of the case. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2003 passed in Settlement Case No. 14 of 2002 whereby settlement of land in favour of late Ram Nandan Gareri in the year 1982 has been cancelled by the Collector, Aurangabad. It is submitted that the petitioner nos.1 and 2 are sons whereas petitioner no.3 is widow of the parcha holder. State has filed counter affidavit. However, no counter - 2 - affidavit seems to be on record on behalf of the appearing private respondents. It appears from the impugned order that some of the settlees had sold the part of the settled lands whereas one Yamuna Bhagat has got the settlement in his favour by manipulation. Thus, on the ground that there had been violation of the instructions of the settlement in the year 1982 itself in favour of six persons as described in the impugned order itself, the Collector, Aurangabad has cancelled the settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it does not appear from the impugned order as to what discrepancies were found with respect to the settlement of land in favour of Ram Nandan Bhagat. In the counter affidavit also it has been stated that there had been discrepancies but what were the discrepancies with regard to the settlement with late Ram Nandan Gareri in particular is not stated. Contention of the petitioners is that aforesaid Parcha holder being a landless person belonging to Backward Class, as noticed even in the impugned order, was entitled for settlement of the land in his favour even though his ancestors were ex-landlords. It is further submitted that neither there had been any allegation of manipulation upon him (which charge is specific against Yamuna Bhagat) nor had he been found guilty for transferring the land settled with him. Learned counsel appearing for the State also could not demonstrate from the impugned order as to upon what consideration, the settlement in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the - 3 - impugned order is not sustainable as without discussing the case and the discrepancies in settlement made in favour of late Ram Nandan Gareri and recording any finding with respect to that, the settlement has been cancelled. I, therefore, allow this writ application, set aside the impugned order, so far as it relates to late Ram Nandan Gareri and remit back the same to be decided afresh after hearing the parties. Uday/ ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )