IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15144 of 2007 MUNSHI RAM S/o Late Jogi Ram resident of village Maharatha P.O. & P.S. Nuaon Dist. Kaimur at Bhabua Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua 3. Sub-Divisisonal Officer, Mohania Dist. Bhabua(Kaimur) 4. D.C.L.R.Mohania Dist Kaimur Bhabua 5. Anchal Adhikari, Nuaon, Kaimur Bhabua 6. Lalji Sadhu S/o Akloo Koiri resident of Maharatha P.O. & P.S. Nuaon Dist. Kaimur at Bhabua Respondents 4 05.03.2009 Heard Mr Suraj Deo Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr R.C. Thakur, learned Standing counsel no.4 (Ceiling), for respondents no. 1 to 5, and Mr Achhabar Singh for respondent no.6. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.8.2006 (Annexure 5), passed by respondent no.3, whereby he has cancelled settlement of the lands in question made in favour of the petitioner, and has restored the settlement made earlier in favour of respondent no.6. Respondents no.2 to 5 have placed on record their counter affidavit. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is with respect to settlement of khesra no. 1343, measuring an area of 50 decimals, appertaining to khata no. 197, Thana no. 250, village Maharatha district Kaimur. Respondent no.6 had submitted application for settlement of the lands in question which was recorded as Þuk vkckn fcgkj ljdkjÞ after following the prescribed procedure. The same was settled in favour of respondent no.6, vide order dated 10.2.1981 (Annexure A), passed by respondent no.4. The petitioner came in - 2 - possession of the same and rent receipts were being issued. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application for settlement of the same land. The Circle Inspector submitted his report recommending settlement of the lands in question in favour of the petitioner. The report was considered by respondent no.5 who directed for publication of the general notice on 13.4.1994 (Annexure 1). This was followed by the order of settlement dated 20.5.1995 (Annexure 2), in favour of the petitioner. It further appears that the matter had thereafter received the attention of respondent no.2 who directed enquiry into the matter. Respondent no.5 submitted his report dated 23.8.2005 (Annexure C), wherein he disclosed the correct state of affairs. It is stated therein that the previous report of the learned Anchal Inspector followed by the aforesaid order dated 20.5.1995 (Annexure 2), were based on misleading report, inasmuch as settlement of the same land had already been made by the order dated 10.2.1981 (Annexure A). This led to the impugned order whereby settlement in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled mainly for the reason that the same land has already been settled in favour of respondent no.6, and the same was so settled in favour of the petitioner without noticing the settlement made earlier in favour of respondent no.6. It further appears to me from a perusal of the writ petition that the parties are already locked in a civil suit for adjudication of right, title and interest. The impugned order can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. shahid (S.K.Katriar, J)