IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10516 of 2007 SURESH KUMAR SINGH, Son of Sheo Pujan Singh, Resident of village-Kanhua, P.O. Bagarihi, Police Station-Ramgarh, District-Kaimur (Bhabua) …………… …………….Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua 2. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Mohaniya, Kaimur 4. Anchal Adhikari, Nuawaon, Kaimur…………Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: 1. Mr. V. Nath 2. Mr. Ashok Kumar 3. Mr. R. M. Pandey. For the Respondent: Mr. Shanbhu Nath AC to Gram Panchayat-10 3. 21.04.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-state and reply of the same has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the Collector, Kaimuar at Bhabua whereby proposal for settlement of 1.63 acres of land of Mauja Kanhua of Khata No. 151 , Plot No. 209 in favour of the petitioner who is a serving military personnel, has been rejected. This is the second time when the petitioner has come before this court for same relief. Earlier the petitioner had filed C.W.J.C. No. 4204of 2004 which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass final order of settlement in favour of the petitioner within three months as recommendation for settlement of this land in favour of the petitioner had been - 2 - made in Settlement Case No. 12 of 2003-04 by the Circle Officer on 20.06.2003. Despite recommendation in favour of the petitioner, following all procedures, the final settlement order was not being passed. This was the reason that the petitioner approached this court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 4204 of 2004. In spite of direction of the High Court in the writ application, the matter remained pending, as such, the petitioner filed MJC No. 829/06. In the MJC, finally show cause was filed on behalf of the contemnor –authorities disclosing the fact that by order dated 12.6.2006, the prayer of the petitioner for settlement of the land has been rejected. The contempt proceeding was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed maliciously by the respondents- authorities for the reason that the petitioner approached High court by filing writ application and also filed a Contempt case on account of non-compliance of the direction of this court. Since the petitioner approached the High Court, the respondents became adamant not to settle the land in favour of the petitioner and made all efforts in this regard. The then Sub Divisional Officer , Mohania specifically directed to the Circle Officer for sending such report that settlement cannot be made in favour of the petitioner. In support of this contention, the petitioner has annexed entire order sheet of Settlement Case. From the order - 3 - sheet, it transpires that Settlement Case was initiated in the year, 2003. By order dated 20.6.2003, favourable recommendation was made in favour of the petitioner by the Circle Officer, Mohania. In the recommendation, it is stated that there is no legal ground for rejecting the application. Petitioner’s prayer for settlement of land is in consonance with the Govt. provisions and there is no objection from any quarter. The nature of land being ANABAD SARVSADHARAN” can be settled in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, when the writ application was filed, the first change was made in recommendation whereby the area of land which was earlier recommended in settlement for an area of 1.63 acres was reduced to 0.98 and 3/4 acres. No reason has been shown for this change. This recommendation was also not found in favour by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and by order dated 06.01.2006, he remitted back the record to the Circle Officer wherein seven points’ inquiry was made. This inquiry was replied by the Circle Officer on 20.01.2006. It was stated that there is no reason for not settling the land. The Sub Divisional Officer, thereafter, again remitted the matter back making another query. This was repeated continuously till the date, the Circle Officer made a report stating that the land cannot be settled with the petitioner as during the Consolidation proceeding, out of the concerned plot, a CHAK has been prepared which is earmarked for public purposes. - 4 - In the counter affidavit, only reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner is that the land in question has been declared a CHAK useful for public purposes. The order sheet is indicative of the fact that how maliciously the respondents have proceeded with the matter. Same land which was earlier recommended in the year, 2003 making query on all relevant points including the CHAK Panj prepared during consolidation proceeding, suddenly, after disposal of the writ application and MJC application was shown as land not proper for settlement. Entire matter was reversed. The respondents-authorities specifically, the then Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and the then Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua were bent upon to teach the petitioner a lesson for approaching the High Court. Finally, they succeeded by passing the impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioner. Most surprising aspect of this case is that part of same plot, which in case of petitioners is said to be declared a Chak earmarked for public purposes, has already been settled to other military personnel. No such objection was raised in his case. It is a matter of record and has been discussed in the reports of the Circle Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the Collector; Kaimur at Bhabua in Settlement Case No. 12 of 2003-04 rejecting proposal for settlement of land to the petitioner is quashed. Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 are directed to settle the - 5 - lands of Mauja , Kanhua, Khata No. 151 Plot No. 209 measuring 1.63 decimals in favour of the petitioner on the basis of recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the Circle Officer , Mohania vide his recommendation order dated 20.6.2003. The final settlement order observing all formalities must be issued by the respondents within one month from the date of production/communication of this order. Copy of the order be communicated to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for taking proper action against the then Sub Divisional Officer, Mohania and the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua for the reason that the impugned order shows their arbitrariness and vindictive approach. This application is, accordingly, allowed. akv (Mridula Mishra, J.)