IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14431 of 2006 Ramji Singh, son of Late shishupal Singh, resident of Vill-and post Danwar, P.S. Karakat (Kanchhawan), District- Bhojpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arra 3. The Superintending Engineer, Sone Canal Anchal Arrah. 4. The Executive Engineer, Sone Canal Division, Arrah. 5. The Assistant Engineer, Sone Canal Sub Division Danwar, Rohtas. 6. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sone Canal Danwar, Rohtas. 7. The Junior Engineer Sub Division, Danwar, Rohtas. 8. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram --------------------- For the petitioner :- Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Mohini Kumari, A.C. to S.C.14 *************** 5 05.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 17.06.2006, (Annexure 11) passed by the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2005 whereby the petitioner’s claim for permission to lift the Vijaya tree No.80, which was auction sold to him, has been refused by the respondent No.2. The petitioner claims that following the due procedure seven trees including Vijaya trees No. 80 has been auction sold in favour of the petitioner and other persons. All other trees sans the Vijaya tree No. 80, was allowed to be lifted by the authorities concerned. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 12458 of 2003 which was disposed of on 08.11.2004 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a petition before the Collector who was directed to examine the matter and dispose of the same within six weeks from the date of its submission. The order of the Collector in compliance of the order aforesaid passed by this Court is under challenge in this writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the Collector has taken a view 2 that the trees could not have been auctioned without assessment and thus due procedure was not followed. However, it has also been recorded in the impugned order that neither any step has been taken by the Department to cancel the said auction nor had date for further auction been fixed for the Vijaya tree No. 80. Learned counsel drew attention of this Court towards Annexure-4, which is survey report of the department and the description of the Vijaya tree is at serial No. 4, which is assessed to be Rs. 605.80. Thus, it is contended that there was an assessment which is reflected in the aforesaid report. It is further submitted that the auction was done following the report of the Executive Engineer as contained in Annexure-2, thereafter, Annexure-3 written by the Superintending Engineer concerned as well as Annexure-5 dated 22.09.1992 by the Executive Engineer, Sone Division, Ara. Learned counsel also drew attention of this Court towards Annexure-9 written from the office of the Superintending Engineer to the concerned Executive Engineer stating therein that the tree concerned has been auction sold in favour of the petitioner and post facto sanction has also been taken on 20.02.1993 itself. Thereafter, the Superintending Engineer by the letter dated 03.09.2002, as contained in Annexure-9, has also directed the Executive engineer to permit the petitioner to lift the concerned tree inasmuch as the same has been auction sold following the procedures for the said purpose. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 without taking into consideration all the aforesaid documents has held that counter has not been done validly as no assessment was made. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that once the tree 3 was auction sold following the procedure laid down for the purpose, the petitioner cannot be refrained from lifting the aforesaid tree as that cancellation of the sale. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the tree is still in safe hand as it is in possession of a Chaukidar of the Department. However, she could had no answer to the documents upon which reliance has been made by the petitioner to demonstrate that the authorities have already expressed view that the tree should be allowed to be lifted by the petitioner. It has not been stated on behalf of the State that in case the tree was auction sold without following the procedure in connivance with the officials, what action has been taken against the erring officer. In above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained in view of non consideration of the aforesaid annexure including the assessment report as well as internal communications between the respondents. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-11 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to pass a fresh orders after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Bibhash (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)