IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5782 of 2010 MANOJ KUMAR SRIVASTAV, S/O SHRI LATE PARASNATH SRIVASTAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AMNOUR AGUAN, P.O. + P.S. AMNOUR, DIST- SARAN. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN AT CHHAPRA. 4. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARHURAH, SARAN AT CHHAPRA. 5. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER-CUM-CIRCLE OFFICER, AMNOUR, SARAN AT CHHAPRA. 6. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AMNOUR POLICE STATION, SARAN AT CHHAPRA. 7. VISHWANATH PRASAD, REVENUE CLERK, AMNOUR, SARAN. … RESPONDENTS. ----------- 5. 12.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the raiyat of Survey Plot No.564, 565, 566 and 567 appertaining to Khata No. 6 measuring an area of 12 Katha 13 Dhurs out of which in the year 1973, 0.1 decimal of land was settled with Suraj Lal Nut and Babulal Nut each. After obtaining settlement of the aforesaid land the two settlees raised their houses and resided in the house raised over the land settled with them. In course of time the family of the settlees grew and they required more accommodation for which they submitted application for being granted benefit under Indira Awash Scheme. Later a proceeding was initiated for grant of home-stead land to the other members of the family of Suraj Lal Nut and Babulal Nut vide Bihar Privileged Persons Home-Stead Tenancy Act Case No. 01 of 2009-2010, order sheet of the said 2 case is annexed as Annexure-E series to the counter affidavit, perusal whereof indicates that Circle Officer, Amnour passed order dated 11.3.2010 granting purcha in favour of the 12 persons on the remaining portion of the lands in question. From the order sheet maintained by the Circle Officer in the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act Case it appears that notice was directed to be served on the raiyat with further direction that in case raiyat failed to accept the notice of the settlement case then to obtain signature of the witnesses by way of proof of service of notice on the raiyat. From perusal of the service report which is at page 72 of the counter affidavit, it appears that one of the witnesses put his signature and the other put his L.T.I. in token of the fact that petitioner refused to accept the notice. 3. Petitioner having failed to accept the notice as is evident from the service report, I am not inclined to proceed with the hearing of the matter any further and direct the petitioner to assail the order passed by the Circle Officer in the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act case taken against him by challenging the same before the appellate authority who is directed to consider the submission of the petitioner that his ancestor had settled only 0.01 decimal of land each in favour of Suraj Lal Nut and Babulal Nut the other portions of the remaining land of the plot in question remained in the possession of the petitioner through out. Any proposal for 3 raising house under the Indira Awas Scheme could not have been entertained over the lands in question as the lands in question does not belong to the State and is the raiyati land of the petitioner. Indira Awas is required to be raised in favour of the members of weaker section of the society on the Government land and not over the land which is forcibly occupied. Accordingly, I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the order passed by the Circle Officer, Amnour in Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act Case No. 01 of 2009-2010. The appeal should be filed alongwith a copy of my order within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of my order. The Collector, Saran should consider the appeal filed against the order passed by the Circle Officer after condoning the delay in filing the same and pass appropriate reasoned order in the matter. The construction made on the lands of the petitioner shall be subject to the result of the aforesaid appeal. Ibrar/- ( V.N. Sinha, J.)