IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9477 of 2009 1. Koshi Nao Yatayat Swablambi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. Kusheshwar Asthan Purbi through its Chairman Upendra Mukhiya S/o Late Shreechan Mukhiya R/o Vill Kewatgama, P.S. Kusheshwar Athan, Dist. Darbhanga 2. Raj Kishore Mukhiya S/o Nago Mukhiya R/o Vill Kewatgama, P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, Dist. Darbhanga Chief Executive of Koshi Nao Yatayat Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Kusheshwar Asthan Purbi Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Darbhanga 3. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Kusheshwar Asthan, Purbi 5. Kusheshwar Asthan Purbi Nao Yatayat Sahyog Samiti Ltd. through its Secretary, Ganga Sagar Paswan, S/o Ghina Paswan, R/o Vill Adalpura P.O. + P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, Dist. 6. The Secretary of Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna Old Secretariat. 7. The Secretary of Cooperative Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna For the Petitioners :M/s Pashupati Pd. Sinha & Deepak Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent no.5 :Mrs. M. Chatterjee, Advocate For the State :Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, A.C. to G.P. 5 09/ 06.11.2009 Head learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and private Respondent no.5. 2. Petitioner no.1 is a Self-Supporting Co-operative Society, which was registered on 24.6.2009 and was an applicant for settlement of the ghat in question pursuant to notice, bearing Memo No. 180 dated 1.7.2009 issued by the Circle Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan, East contained in Annexure-2 to this application. 3. Perusal of the notice indicates that 8.7.2009 was the date fixed for the settlement. It appears, settlement was made by the Circle Officer on the reserve jama with private Respondent no.5 in terms of the orders dated 8.7.2009, contained in Annexure-1 to this application. 4. Counsel for the petitioners assails the said settlement order on the ground that without considering the case of the petitioner, - 2 - Self Supporting Co-operative Society, settlement has been made in favour of private Respondent no.5, which is wholly arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, including Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. In reply, counsel for the State and private Respondent no.5 have supported the impugned order and have submitted that the settlement with the private Respondent no.5 has been made in compliance of the instruction of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division contained in Memo No. 289 dated 4.7.2009, Annexure-A/5 to the counter affidavit. 6. Perusal of the instructions of the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division indicates that he had asked the Collector, Darbhanga to ensure settlement of the ghat in question in favour of the Society after observing the procedure as laid down under circular letter no. 2526 dated 12.9.1978 issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department of the State Government and according to the counsel for the State and private Respondent no.5, no illegality in making settlement with the private Respondent no.5 has been committed as the Circle Officer has complied with the instructions contained in circular letter dated 12.9.1978. It is further submitted that since the petitioner- society was registered only a few days earlier, it could not obtain the recommendation in its favour from the authorities of the Co-operative Department and thereby in compliance of the instructions of the State Government contained in letter dated 12.9.1978, paragraph 12, the case of the society could not be - 3 - considered. In this connection, it is also pointed out that pursuant to the settlement, Respondent no.5 has already deposited the settlement amount until 31.3.2010 and if this Court intervenes in the matter, such intervention may be detrimental to the interest of Respondent no.5, as Respondent no.5 has already deposited the settlement amount until 31.3.2010. 7. Having heard counsel for the petitioners, State and the private Respondent no.5 as also having perused the impugned settlement order dated 8.7.2009, I am of the view that thereunder the case of the petitioners has not been considered at all and in the circumstances, the direction contained in the said order is modified to the extent that Respondent no.5 be allowed to continue with the settlement of the ghat in question until 31.3.2009, whereafter settlement of the said ghat be made afresh after due consideration of the case of the petitioner- society as also of the private Respondent no.5 in accordance with law. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)