1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2895 of 2007 SURAJ KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 15.7.2008 Heard. Petitioner has sought settlement of certain land. He made an application . Pursuant to his application a settlement case being Settlement Case no. 1 of 2004-05 was initiated by the Anchal Adhikari, Beldor in Khagaria district. A recommendation was drawn up and made to the Subdivisional Officer. The Subdivisional Officer raised certain queries by his memo no. 676, dated 11.8.2005 (Annexure 5). This was responded to by the Halka Karamchari by Annexure A stating that on spot verification certain people showed settlement from ex landlord on basis of certified copy of return in their favour. It was accordingly reported that the land was subject to raiyati settlement though in the cadastral survey/Khatian it was recorded as Gair Mazarua Khas but the nature of the land has since changed . This report was submitted to the Anchal Adhikari but then made a recommendation as to be found in Annexure 6 being order dated 30.6.2006 in the said proceeding. Here the Circle Officer does not even notice the report of the Halka Karamchari much less rejected. He based his recommendation on an earlier report of Halka Karamchari, which is contained in Annexure 3 wherein he had found the petitioner and his like in cultivating possession. This recommendation when was placed before the Subdivisional Officer , the Subdivisional 2 Officer holding that these lands were subject to raiyati settlement earlier by the ex landlord, has rejected the claim of the petitioner by Annexure B to the counter affidavit. Now, it seems that the Anchal Adhikari . has issued notices to various persons, who were claiming to be raiyats to establish their rights. Petitioner submits that all these jugglery are being done to wrongly deprive the petitioner of his right to get a settlement of land in his favour. It is submitted that first the Halka Karamchari reports of his possession (part of Annexure 2) then without withdrawing those findings he again reports that various people are occupying the lands on basis of settlement received from ex landlord prior to vesting of zamindari in respect whereof he relied on the certified copy of the returns filed by the ex landlord and the report of the Circle Officer, as mentioned in his order dated 30.6.2006, which does not even recognize these raiyat . In view of these facts, it is submitted that the land being Gair Mazarua khas and petitioner being in occupation , settlement ought to have been made in his favour. I am afraid this Court cannot entertain such a plea where basic primary facts are serious in dispute. Whether the first report of the Halka Karamachari was correct or Whether the second report was correct cannot be resolved by this Court in this summary proceeding.Similary whether the report of the Anchal 3 Adhikari is correct or the report of the Halka Karamchari is correct cannot also be resolved . In my view, the proper course for the petitioner is to avail other remedy that may be available to him before the Superior officer and get the records and facts set right. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed as such with the above observation. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh )