IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8738 of 2008 Murli Dhar Choudhary, son of Late Nathuni Choudhary, village Andhara, PS Andhara Tharhi, Dist. Madhubani – Petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar, (2) The District Magistrate, Madhubani. (3) The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Jhanjharpur, Dist. Madhubani. (4) The Subdivisional Officer, Jhanjharpur. (5) The Block Dev. Officer, Andharatharhi, Dist. Madhubani. (6) The Circle Officer, Andharatharhi, Madhubani. (7) Laxaman Thakur, son of Late Dwarik Thakur, (8) Shatrughan Thakur, son of Late Dwarik Thakur, village Andhara, PS Andhara Tharhi, Dist. Madhubani – Respondents. 3 16.7.2010 This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order, dated 10.12.2007 passed by the Circle Officer, Andhara Tharhi in Misc. Case No. 4/2006-07 by which Basgit parcha which was cancelled, has been restored to respondent no.6 with respect to C.S. khata no. 312, plot no. 636, R.S. Khata no. 834, plot no. 516. The Parcha was earlier cancelled on the ground that there was a road on one of the plots for which Basgit Parcha was issued. The petitioner being the neighbour objected to Basgit Parcha and, therefore, prayed for cancellation. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein it is stated that a portion of the road amalgamated with the lands of the parcha holder, but the larger part of the road is free from any blockage and there is no disturbance or hindrance as the petitioner can freely acess his residential house. Again at paragraph no.17 of the counter affidavit it is stated as under : “It is correct to state that in cadastral survey khatiyan the disputed land has been shown as Rasta but the same has been shown under raiyati khata as such according to C.S. khatiyan the land is 2 shown as raiyati Rasta. As per revisional survey khatiyan which is not available to the Anchal Adhikari at the time of issuance of Parcha it has been shown Anabad Sarvsadharan Kism Rasta and the land is portion of Rasta and other facts requires no comments.” From the pleadings in the counter affidavit it is clear that part of the Rasta has been amalgamated with the larger portion of the land for which Basgit Parcha was issued. The petitioner is a busy body and has no right to challenge the grant of parhca. His possession or title on his house has not been disturbed. In view of the fact that the State admits that Parcha has been granted on part of land, which is Rasta, it becomes important that the court should clarify that settlement or Parcha should not be granted for land which is a „Rasta‟. In this case an undertaking should be obtained from the respondent that he will not object if the land settled to him which has been described as Rasta is needed for widening of the road. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)