IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3646 of 2009 1. ALAULI ANCHAL BOAT TRAFFIC COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD Phultora, through its Secretary, Japan Mukhiya, Phultora, Alauli District- Khagaria 2. Japan Mukhiya, S/o Noonu Mukhiya, resisent of Village- Phultora, P.S.- Alauli, District- Khagaria. ----------------Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Secretary, Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector, Khagaria, Distridct- Khagaria 3. The Addl. Collector, Khagaria, District- Khagaria 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khagaria District- Khagaria 5. The Deputy Collecotr, Land Reforms Khagaria, District- Khagaria 6. The District Co-operative Officer, Khagaria 7. The Circle Officer, Alauli, P.S.- Alauli, District- Khagaria. ---------Respondents. ----------- 8. 23.7.2009 This writ application has been filed with a prayer for quashing the decision dated 16.10.2008 contained in Annexure-6 by which Ghurandera Killgarai Ghat has been settled/auctioned for the year 2008-09 through public auction. The petitioners submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner’s have accepted the amount which was fixed by the public auction they pray that they may not be asked to deposit the entire amount on the ground that the figures on which the settlement was made by the public auction is unrealistic and exorbitant. The State Government settles the ghat in view of various notifications issued in this respect. Preference is to be given to the Societies who are operating in the Anchal where the Ghats are situated before they can be settled by public auction. The facts are that 12 Ghats came for settlement in the year 2008-09 which were to be settled on the basis of the amount settled by the Reserved Jama - 2 - Committee. The Department of Land Reforms by resolution no. 261 dated 12.2.1981 decided that the settlement of Ghats will be made with the society operating in the area. For assessing the capacity of the Ghats, the State Government decided to constitute a Reserve Jama Fixation Committee at the Divisional level and District level for fixing the Reserve Jama. Accordingly, the meeting of the Reserve Jama Committee was held which is contained in Annexure-4 which indicates that Reserve Jama fixed by the State Government for the Ghat in question for the year 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Whereas the Reserve Jama was fixed at Rs. 29,000/- for the year 2006-07, the Reserve Jama was fixed at Rs. 33,500/- for the year 2008-09. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that giving a go by to the reserve jama settled by the committee, a notice was issued vide Annexure- 5 for settling the Ghat by open bid. In response to the notice three persons came forward and made a bid for the settlement of the Ghat. Shree Lalan Kumar bid an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, Shree Ram Bilash Yadav bid an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs whereas Shree Susil Kumar bid an amount of Rs. 16 lakhs. After making the said bid, the counsel for the petitioner submits that all three of them did not offer to take settlement on the bid amount offered by them. Accordingly, the petitioner’s society came forward and under PROTEST agreed to take the settlement of the Ghat paid a sum of Rs. 5,20,000/- as the first installment in lieu of the settlement of the Ghat. This writ application has been filed making a prayer to the State Government to reconsider the settlement amount in view of the - 3 - fact that the amount is exorbitant and unrealistic. The State Government has filed a counter affidavit in which they have stated that in pursuance of letter no. 2526 R dated 12.9.1978 the settlement was made by open bid and it is also the stand of the State that once the petitioners had accepted the bid amount, they were not entitled to say that they would not pay the entire money and that the State Government should permit them to take settlement of the Ghat at Rs. 5,20,000/-. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the State Government has relied upon a circular of 1978 whereas they have given a complete go bye to the circular issued by the department (State Government) contained in Annexure-9 series i.e. letter no. 2788 dated 24.8.2008 and letter no. 730 dated 9.3.2002. The letter no. 730 dated 9.3.2002 reads as follows:- ^^mi;ZwDr fo’k;d izklafxd i= dh vksj vkidk /;ku vkd`’V djrs gq, dguk gS fd fnukad 06@03@2001 dks leLrhiqj ftyk ds Hkze.k ds dze esa dY;k.kiqj iz[kaM esa eNqvkjksa@ukfodksa ds lkFk gqbZ cSBd ds nkSjku fofHkUu iz[kaMks ds uko ;krk;kr lg;ksx lfefr@Lokcyach lgdkjh lfefr fy0 ds ea=h@dk;Zdkj.kh lnL; }kjk v|ksgLrk{kjh dks cryk;k x;k fd leLrhiqj ftyk ifj’kn }kjk ?kkVksa dh izLrkfor cankscLrh esa uko ;krk;kr lg;ksx lfefr@Lokoyach lgdkjh lfefr dks izkFkfedrk ugha nsdj ?kkVksa dh [kqyh Mkd dj O;fDr fo”ks’k ds lkFk cankscLrh dh dkjZokbZ dh tk jgh gSA cankscLrh dh ;g izfdz;k izklafxd i=kas ds foijhr dkjZokbZ fd, tkus dk ladsr gSA izklafxd ifji=ksa esa Li’V gS fd ?kkVksa dh cankscLrh [kqyh Mkd ls ugha dj lqjf{kr tek dj l{ke eRL;thoh lg;skx lfefr ds lkFk fd;k tkuk gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd d`I;k vius ftyk varxZr lacaf/kr cankscLr inkf/kdkjh dks ;g funs”k nsus dh d`ik djsaxs fd ;fn l{ke uko ;krk;kr lg;ksx lfefr@Lokoyach lgdkjh lfefr fy0 miyC/k gks rks ?kkVksa dh [kqyh Mkd }kjk cankscLrh ugha dj uko ;krk;kr lg;ksx lfefr@Lokoyach lgdkjh lfefr ds lkFk gh fu/kkZfjr lqjf{kr tek ij rhu o’kksZa ds fy, cankscLrh dh tk;A lkFk gh - 4 - ;g Hkh lqfuf”pr fd;k tk; fd lfefr }kjk fy, x, ?kkVksa dh cankscLrh dk ykHk lfefr ds lnL;ksa dks izkIr gksA** Letter No. 2788 dated 28.4.2008 reads as follows:- ^^funs”kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fu;e ds izlax eas foHkkxh; i=kad 2783 fnukad 28@4@82 izfrfyfi vuqyXud lfgr layXu dj dguk gS fd jktLo ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj foHkkx }kjk fu/kZkfjr uhfr ds vuqlkj tydjksa ,oa ?kkVksa dh cUnkscLrh [kqyh Mkd ls ugha dj lqjf{kr tek dj bPNqd eRL;thoh lg;ksx lfefr ds lkFk fd;k tkuk gS fdUrq izk;% ,slh lwpuk fey jgh gS fd cUnkscLrh O;fDr fo”ks’k ds lkFk dj nh tkrh gS ;g ljdkjh uhfr ds izfrdwy gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd jktLo ,oa Hkwfe lq/kkj foHkkx ds fu/kkZfjr uhfr ds vuqlkj gh ftyk ifj’kn ds ?kkVksa ,oa lSjkrksa dh cUnkscLrh fu;fer <ax ls djus dh d`ik djsaA uhfr dks dM+kbZ ls ikyu fuf”pr :i ls fd;k tk;A** It is therefore submitted that the very initiation of the process by the State Government for settling the Ghat by open bid was against the circular of the Government. It has further been submitted that the reserve jama for the Ghat in dispute was fixed for the year 2005-06, 2006-07 at Rs. 29,000/- and for the year 2008-09 to 2010-11 at Rs. 33,500/-. The bid amount exceeded by almost 600 per cent of the Reserve Jama fixed by the State Government. Even it is treated to be at the rate of Rs. 5 lakhs it exceeds the Reserve Jama by three times the amount fixed, and if it is treated to be as Rs. 16,00100/- it is 600 percent more than the amount fixed by the Reserve Jama Committee. The submission is that the Ghats are used for carrying food grains etc. between two villages which has a total population of 1000 to 1700 persons and the fixation of the bid amount of Rs. 16 lakhs cannot be held to be reasonable. The State counsel on the other hand vehemently argued that the petitioners having accepted the bid amount at Rs. 16 lakhs cannot claim relaxation in the bid amount. Besides that it is the stand that the - 5 - food grains are carried to the District of Samastipur, Darbhanga and Sasarsa through this river. This Court relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Bakerganj Machhua Swablambi Sahkari Samittee Ltd & Ors Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2003(3) 440 wherein the Court held the bid amount was an unrealistic and exorbitant figure in view of the fact that the persons who made the bid did not take part in the bid and ran away from the field. On the other hand, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioners accepted the bid amount at Rs. 16,00100/- albeit under protest. The petitioners’ case has to be considered by the State Government in the light of the circulars dated 18.1.1982, 18.9.1997 and those contained in Annexure-8/9 series. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the bid amount of Rs. 16 lakhs cannot be said to be reasonable or justified in view of the area of operation and in view of the fact that the procedure for settling the ghat by open bid is a deviation from the general procedure followed by the State Government. I, accordingly, remand the matter back to the Collector, Khagaria to take into consideration what would be the amount of remission that could be given in the facts of this case keeping in view the various circulars of the State Government, the fact that the area of operation of the said Ghat of the two villages, the fact that the persons who bid the amount were fake persons not really interested in taking the settlement and that the petitioners’ society took the Ghats under protest. The society should make a representation to the Collector, - 6 - Khagaria and the Collector, Khagaria should take into account the aforesaid facts and observations of this Court and pass an appropriate order within a period of three months. In the meantime, Annexure-7 shall remain stayed and no coercive steps should be taken against the petitioners’ society by the respondents. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. P. Kumar (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)