IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7066 of 2011 SAMRENDRA PRATAP SINGH SON OF RAM SHANKAR SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANDIPUR, P.S. RAMGARH, DISTRICT-KAIMUR AT BHABHUA …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MOHANIA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, RAMGARH, BLOCK RAMGARH, DISTT. KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, RAMGARH, BLOCK RAMGARH, DISTT. KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 7. BIHARI SAH SON OF RAMDHANI SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BANDIPUR(RAMGARH) P.O. AND P.S. RAMGARH, DISTT. KAIMUR AT BHABHUA ….RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :Mr. Chandra Shekhar Singh, Sr. Advocate For respondent no.7 :Mr. Yogendra Kumar & :Dr. M.K.Gautam For the State :Mrs. Parinita Rai A.C. to G.P.VII ----------- 02. 25.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as well as respondent no.7. Petitioner has approached this Court questioning the sustainability of the order dated 28.01.2011, passed by Respondent-Circle Officer in Misc. Case No.20/2010/11, whereby the settlement of 0.04 decimals of land in favour of the petitioner by Parvana (Annexure-2) on 5.02.2010 has been cancelled. It appears that petitioner claiming himself to be an army personnel, approached the authority for settlement of a piece of land in his favour. Such claim was raised based on the circular of the government contained in letter no.4 dated 16.08.1982 issued in the department of Revenue, Land Reforms (Annexure-1). On verification he was found eligible and 2 accordingly the settlement was made. Aggrieved by the said settlement, respondent no.7 approached this Court by filing CWJC No. 13806 of 2010. This Court by a proceeding dated 24.08.2010 disposed of the said matter by the following order:- “This writ application is disposed of with a direction to the Collector to consider the application for status quo/interim relief to the petitioners. The matter should be disposed of by the Collector within a period of six weeks after hearing the petitioners, respondent no.4 and the Circle Officer. The petitioner would be at liberty to bring this order to the notice of the collector within a period of four weeks on receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are also directed to file certified copy of Annexure-1 within the aforesaid period i.e. one month. In the mean time, no construction should be made on the lands settled in favour of respondent no.4 Samarendra Pratap Singh.” Accordingly, both parties were heard by respondent- Collector and the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that the cancellation is in breach of the circular of the government. It is further contended that petitioner does not hold the land in excess of 50 decimals of land. Finding recorded to the contrary is an error of record. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as private respondent no.7 drew attention of the Court to the report earlier submitted by the Circle Officer in order to show that petitioner was having land in excess of the said area and, as such, he is not entitled to settlement. The Respondent-Collector in the light of the 3 direction issued by this Court, issued notices to both the parties and after affording opportunity of hearing passed the order relevant portion of which reads as under:- “After hearing the parties and analyzing the materials on record I find that Samarendra Pratap Singh and his family members possess 19.54 acres of lands under chak khata no.21,51 and 67 situated in village Alipur under Ramgarh Anchal and more than 22 acres of land under R.S. Khata no.78 situated in village Barki Kulariha under Mohania Anchal but lands of R.S. Khata no.78 and the lands of Chak khata no.67 appear to be suppressed purposely by Samarendra Pratap Singh during settlement proceeding. In the circumstance as per admitted pedigree table Samarendra Pratap Singh will get about 5 acres of land on partition in the family. It is also no where said by Samarendra Pratap Singh that he is either homeless or he has no land for his own house. As such Samarendra Pratap Singh is neither a beneficiary nor he is eligible for concession. The land in question is ditch land and same is also situated by the side of main road i.e. Bhabua Buxar road. The location and the situation of the land in question of the road as well as its soil may be also utilized for the purposes of repair of the road. This piece of land also appears to be used by the villagers for Rasta. In the circumstance I am of the opinion that such type of land should not become the subject matter of settlement in the interest of public.” After hearing the parties and on perusal of materials on record, this Court is of the view that there is no procedural and/or jurisdictional error in the order. Petitioner herein was heard in the light of order of this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any breach/violation of statutory provision justifying invocation of extra-ordinary 4 writ jurisdiction by this Court. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )