IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1413 of 2009 SARYU PRASAD YADAV S/O LATE KAILASH PRASAD R/O MESKAUR PANCHAYAT, P.S.- MESKAUR, DISTT.- NAWADA … Writ petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR REVENUE, NAWADA 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, RAJAULI, NAWADA 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAULI, NAWADA 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SRIDALLA, NAWADA 7. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, SRIDALLA, NAWADA 8. HALKA KARMCHARI, HALKA NO., NAWADA 9. RAM SWAROOP PRASAD YADAV S/O BUNDI PRASAD YADAV VILL.- BHOLA KURHA, P.S.- SRIDALLA, NAWADA … Respondents-Respondents ----------- 3. 15.4.2010 I.A.No. 7113/2009 This is an application for condonation of delay of 20 days in preferring the appeal. Having heard Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel alongwith Mr. Ujjwal Kumar Singh for the appellant and Mr. Marth Nath Roy, learned counsel for the State and regard being had to the averments made in the application, we are inclined that sufficient grounds do exit for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. I.A. is thus disposed of. L.P.A.No. 1413/2009 2 As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission and final disposal. On consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. The appellant, a Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Meskaur, at one point of time invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 15.4.2003 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rajauli, Nawadah in respect of 1.51 acres of land of village Noni, Thana No. 36, Khata No. 84, Plot No. 546, whereby the said land has been settled in favour of respondent no.9 under the policy of the State Government, inasmuch as respondent no.9 was an army personnel at the time of submission of application in the year 1982. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that respondent no.9 was not a landless person; that the procedure which has been prescribed for settlement of land had not been followed; that the consent of Gram Sabha had not been taken; that the appellant, who was Mukhiya, at that juncture had not convened the meeting 3 of Gram Sabha as stipulated under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993; that the settlement of land in favour of respondent no.9 deserves to be set aside, inasmuch as he had retired by the time of settlement. Learned Single Judge adverting to the facts came to hold that the settlement was in accordance with the policy; that the Gram Sabha was also held on the issue of no objection as per Annexure G which has not been controverted; that the appellant had an axe to grind against the respondent no.9, inasmuch as he had initiated a proceeding under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against him; that the order of settlement clearly reflects that respondent no.9 owned 0.49 acres of land and had been allowed settlement by the respondent no.4 in respect of 1.51 acres of land as per policy. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge really cannot be found fault despite the colossal complaint that has been made by the Mukhiya assailing the order of settlement. It is a personal vendetta as it appears to us as a proceeding was initiated in the year 1982 and it almost took 21 years to get 4 Surendra/ fructified and the man serving in the army retired. The policy does not stipulate that if an army personnel retires would not be entitled to the benefit. That apart the personal interest of the appellant is manifestly vivid as he has fought litigations against the 9th respondent. Before parting with the appeal we may state the State Government has framed a laudable policy to grant settlement in favour of army personnel regard being had to their contribution. It is worth noting when soldiers fight in the frontiers the citizens sleep peacefully in the night. It is to be borne in mind at the time of peace the sons bury fathers and at the time of war the fathers bury sons. It is unfortunate that an elected Mukhiya having an axe to grind has come forward to challenge the settlement on absolutely mercurial grounds which reflects the personal vengeance. In view of the preceding analysis we concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 5