IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5267 of 2007 ARUN KUMAR SINGH Son of Shri Kailash Prasad Singh. Resident of Village & P.O. Pirhinda, Via- Sikandra, District Jamui Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector-cum- District Magistrate, Jamui 3. The Additional Collector, Jamui 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamui 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Jamui 6. The Anchal Adhikari, Sikandra, Jamui 7. Baleshwar Prasad Singh, S/o Late Kamleshwari Prasad Singh, At and P.O.- Dhandhaur, Anchal Sikandra, District Jamui ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Abbas Haider, Advocate For the Respondent no.7: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :Mr. Kumar Malendu, AC to AAG-8 04/ 22.01.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and the private Respondent no.7. 2. Petitioner, who is an Ex-military personnel, is aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2006, Annexure-11, passed by the Additional Collector, Jamui in Misc. Case No. 8 of 2005- 06, whereunder the Additional Collector, Jamui has rejected the application of the petitioner for settlement of the lands in question on the ground that the Jamabandi for the lands in question is in the name of Respondent no.7, Baleshwar Prasad Singh and petitioner should approach the competent Civil Court for cancellation of the said Jamabandi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 17.11.2006, Annexure-11, on the ground that the order has been passed under the dictates of the Hon’ble Minister of Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, as would appear from Annexure-9. He further contends that the impugned order 2 tentamounts to annulling another order passed in favour of the petitioner dated 16.8.2006, Annexure-10 by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamui, as thereunder the two officers had found the Jamabandi created in favour of Respondent no.7 to be illegal. 4. From the impugned order, order dated 16.8.2006, Annexure-10 and the counter affidavit of the State- respondents, it appears that the Jamabandi in favour of Respondent no.7 for the lands in question was created vide Case No. 26 of the year 1960-61. 5. Counsel for the petitioner states that creation of the Jamabandi in favour of Respondent no.7, vide Case No. 26 of 1960-61 was by an authority, who was not vested with the powers to create such Jamabandi. 6. Correctness or otherwise of the Jamabandi created as far back as in the year 1960-61 cannot be looked into by the revenue authorities at this belated stage and in the light of such fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 17.11.2006, Annexure-11, as from perusal of the said order, it does not appear that the same has been passed under the dictates of the Minister, Land Reforms, as such, other points taken in support of the petition also do not appear to be correct. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. I, however, observed that if the petitioner, being military personnel, is entitled for settlement, then his case be 3 considered for grant of settlement over some other Government land in accordance with law. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)