IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9081 of 2007 Sheo Nath Bind, son of Lagan Bind, resident of village- Pithiaon, P.S. Chenari, Distt.- Rohtas. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Collector, Rohtas. 4. The Additional District Collector, Rohtas. 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram, Rohtas. 6. The S.D.O., Sasaram, Distrt. Rohtas. 7. The Anchal Adhikari, Chenari, Distt. Rohtas. .. Respondents. ----------- 02- 11.2.2009 Heard Mr. Rajani Kant Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjay Kumar-2, learned Government Pleader No.15. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.5.2005 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, in Revision Case No.10 of 2005 (Shiv Nath Bind Vs. the State of Bihar), whereby he has refused to interfere with the orders of the authorities below him, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for settlement of land. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner had submitted an application before 2 the revenue authorities for settlement of plot no.377, appertaining to khata no.102, covering an area of 2.45 acres, situate in Mauza- Pithiaon, P.S. Chenari, District- Rohtas. The application was rejected by the learned L.R.D.C. by order dated 1.2.1984 (Annexure-1), passed in Land Settlement Case No.37 of 1977-78, on the ground that the land in question is Ghair- Mazarua Aam and is being used for public purposes. The petitioner’s appeal has been rejected on identical grounds by order dated 16.2.1989 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Additional Collector, Rohtas, in Settlement Appeal No.40 of 1986-87. The petitioner’s revision application has been rejected by the impugned order mainly on the ground that the land is being used for public purposes, and the people at large use the land. The petitioner’s application for settlement has, therefore, been rejected for a valid reason. The impugned order cannot, therefore, be faulted. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3