IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.305 of 2008 Bandera Muraul Navyatayat Swablambi Sahkari Samiti Limited having its office at village and P.O. Sunderpur Ratwara, PS Pear, Dist. Muzaffarpur through its Chief Executive, Chandra Bhushan Thakur, son of Rajdeo Thakur, village and P.O. Sunderpur Patwara, PS Pear, Dist. Muzaffarpur .. Appellant. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Muzaffarpur, 3. Addl. Collector, Muzaffarpur, 4. Zilla Parishad, Muzaffarpur through its Secretary. 5. District Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Muzaffarpur .. Respondents Ist Party. 6. Muraul Prakhand Navyatayat Sahyog Samiti having its office at Muraul, PS Sakora, Dist. Muzaffarpur through its Secretary .. Respondent 2nd Party. 6 6.3.2009 Heard the parties and perused the judgment under appeal. Originally the writ petitioner had claimed two reliefs. One was for settlement of Ghats in question in favour of the petitioner society and second for a declaration that the settlement of Ghats made with respondent no.6 is bad in law. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing and decision on 26.2.2008, it was noticed that the period of settlement was going to expire soon on 31.3.2008. In that view of the matter, the writ petitioner gave up its relief for quashing the settlement in favour of respondent no.6 but it wanted a declaration from the court that the petitioner society was alone competent to take settlement of the Ghats falling in the area of Bandera Prakhand. The writ court after holding that the writ petition had become futile, proceeded to discuss further the issue whether respondent no. 6 was also entitled for being considered for settlement of the concerned Ghats or not, only in deference to the wishes of learned counsel for the petitioner and to consider the submissions 2 advanced by him. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the writ court had come to a finding that the writ petition had become futile, no further discussion should have been made regarding the entitlement of respondent no.6 for settlement of Ghats in question. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that even on facts there was dispute noticed by the writ court as to whether the three Ghats settled with respondent no.6 actually lie within truncated Muraul Prakhand or within the newly created Bandera Prakhand. We find that the aforesaid issue on facts has not been finally decided by the writ court. We are further of the view that after holding that the writ petition had become futile, further discussion made by the writ court was really not warranted and was apparently on the insistence of counsel for the petitioner. In the facts of the case we are also of the view that the writ petition had become futile and should have been dismissed as such with the observation that the relevant issues of fact as well as law would survive for being decided by the authorities in future if the dispute persists. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of with an observation that the dispute of fact as to whether the three Ghats settled with respondent no.6 lie in the truncated Muraul Prakhand or in the newly created Bandera Prakhand will be open to fresh decision by the concerned authorities on the basis of the relevant materials. It will 3 be open for the appellant to furnish the relevant materials before the authorities, if necessary. haque (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)