IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3054 of 2005 1, eshwar Mukhiya, son of Late Makun Mukhiya, village Belsandi, PS Bithan, Dist. Samastipur, Chief Executive of Bithan and Bidyapati Nagar Prakhand Naw Yatayat Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited, Belsandi. 2. Bithan and Bidyapati Nagar Prakhand Naw Yatayat Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Belsandi through its Chief Executive Makeshwar Mukhiya – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division. 3. The Zila Parishad, Samastipur through Dy. Dev. Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Samastipur. 4. The Dy. Dev. Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Samastipur. 5. Baria Padadhikari, Zila Parishad, Samastipur – Respondents. 3 4.8.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that although he had deposited Rs. 1,76,094/- in lieu of the proposed settlement of the three Ghats, namely, Larjha Ghat, Phuhiya Ghat and Manokha Ghat, neither Parwana was issued nor final settlement was made in his favour. By memo no. 292, dated 13.1.2005 the petitioner has been asked to make payment of the remaining amount of 50% settlement of the Ghats or else it has been said that the amount deposited by him would be treated to have been forfeited in view of the loss caused to the Zila Parishad, Samastipur. On perusal of the writ petition, particularly Annexure 7, it appears that due to the Lok Sabha election the process of finalization of the settlement could have been made in favour of the petitioner and as such the Zila Parishad, Samastipur decided to collect the revenue departmentally. The break up of the revenue collected has also been given in Annexure 7. If the revenue was being collected departmentally, it cannot be said that the money paid as advance should be forfeited by Zila Parishad. It is not the fault of the petitioner that the Zila Parishad 2 could not finalize the settlement within time. The letter, dated 31.1.2005 contained in Annexure 1 which is under challenge has been issued after ten months of conducting the bid which in itself appears to be unwarranted. Considering all the facts respondent no.4 i.e. Dy. Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive who is the Executive Officer of the Zila Parishad should take steps to return the money deposited by the petitioner, by way of advance, for the settlement of the aforesaid Ghats within a period of six months. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)