IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8671 of 2005 Gram Panchayat Raj,Kushmar, through its Mukhiya, Pramod Kumar Bhagat, son of Rajeshwar Prasad Bhagat, resident of Sangrampur, P.S. Sangrampur, District Munger. … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, Munger, District Munger 5. The District Nazarat Officer, Munger, District Munger … Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Sr. Advocate, Raj Kumar Singh and Prabhakar Mishra, Advocates. For the Respondents : A.C. to A.A.G. III -------- 04/ 28.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent-State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 09.10.2008 (Annexure 8) passed by the Collector, Munger (respondent no.4), by which the remaining reserve money amounting to Rs.1,36,679.00 and agreement fee amounting to Rs.15,20.00 were forfeited and also for a direction to respondent-authorities to refund the said amounts to the petitioner with interest @ 12% per annum. 2 From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as from the averments of learned counsel for the parties, it is quite apparent that Sangrampur Haat, situated within Raj Kushmar Gram Panchayat, was a Sairat under the Government of Bihar and it was 2 settled with the petitioner for the period from 01.10.2002 to 30.09.2003 vide order dated 25.09.2002 (Annexure 1) and as per the direction, the petitioner deposited the entire reserve money amounting to Rs.1,62,501.00 and agreement fee amounting to Rs.15,200.00, whereafter an agreement was executed and parwana for settlement of the said Haat was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Collector, Munger. 3. It transpires that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner approached the Collector, Munger for refund of the aforesaid amounts, who considered the matter and found that the petitioner had utilized the Sairat for 58 days and hence after deducting the amount with respect to the said 58 days, it was found that the reserved money of Rs. 1,36,679.00 was to be refunded to the petitioner, but since the said money had already been deposited in the Treasury, it was not possible to refund it immediately. Hence vide letter dated 30.04.2005 (Annexure 6), the Collector, Munger wrote to the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna for allotment of the said amount for paying it to the petitioner. 4. It transpires that the matter was again considered by the Collector of Munger, who, vide his order dated 09.10.2008 (Annexure 8), forfeited the aforesaid remaining reserve money and agreement fee. 5. From the said letter of the Collector, Munger as well as from the statements made in the counter-affidavit, it transpires 3 that there was no occasion for the Collector to reconsider the entire matter and pass the said order, which was totally against the well- considered order passed by the earlier Collector. 6. The petitioner in this writ petition has not challenged the cancellation of settlement of the said Haat as the said cancellation has already been affirmed by a Bench of this Court by order dated 18.04.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 187 of 2003 (Annexure D), but he has filed this writ petition only for the refund of the aforesaid amounts, which have been found to be admittedly payable to him by the earlier Collector. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the Collector, Munger, dated 09.10.2008 (Annexure 8) is clearly illegal and perverse and is, accordingly, quashed. 8. This writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the present Collector, Munger for redressal of his grievance, which he raised before this Court for payment of the remaining reserve money and agreement fee. If such an application is filed by the petitioner within fifteen days from today, the said authority shall decide the same by a speaking order within two months thereafter considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the earlier order passed by this Court. If any amount or interest thereon is found to be admitted and payable, the said authority shall pay the same to the petitioner immediately 4 thereafter. However, if any amount or interest is not found admitted and payable in the said order, the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the same before an appropriate forum. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )