IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13899 of 2009 1. Akhta Nao Yatayat Sahyog Samiti Ltd., at village- Akhta, P.S. Bargania, District- Sitamarhi, through its Secretary Gopal Sahni, son of Sri Devki Sahni. 2. Gopal Sahni son of Sri Devki Sahni, resident of Village- Akhta- Malahi Tola, P.S. Bargania, District- Sitamarhi, Secretary, Akhta Nao Yatayat Sahyog Samiti Ltd....................................Petitioners. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner and Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Collector, Sitamarhi. 4. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi. 5. Md. Ibrahim, son of late Md. Mirjan, resident of Village Akhta Tola Bhesiharwa, P.S. Bargania, District-Sitamarhi...Respondents. ----------- 2. 26.10.2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Society and the State. Petitioner Co-operative Society was allowed settlement of Akhta Ghat at the amount of Reserve Jama fixed by the authority on the basis of highest bid amount of the last year. Later, Md. Ibrahim (Respondent no.5) offered higher amount which was not accepted by the Collector and the Parwana was issued in favour of the petitioner-Society. Such action of the Collector was challenged by Md. Ibrahim before the learned Divisional Commissioner who having called for the records under order dated 5.9.2009, set aside the settlement made in favour of the petitioner with direction to settle the Ghat with Md. Ibrahim. Petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order dated 5.9.2009 on the ground that in terms of the provision contained in Section 9 of the Bengal Ferry Act, the learned Divisional Commissioner has no jurisdiction in the matter and he could not have entertained the appeal filed by Md. Ibrahim. It is 2 further submitted that before passing the order dated 5.9.2009, the learned Divisional Commissioner was obliged to hear the petitioner Boatmen Society and pass orders after hearing the society. In terms of the policy decision of the Government, the Boatmen Society has preferential rights in the matters of settlement of Ghats over individual. 2. From perusal of the order dated 5.9.2009 as also the other orders which have been passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner in the appeal filed by Md. Ibrahim which is contained in Annexure-5 to the application, it is evident that the learned Divisional Commissioner has not heard the petitioner before passing the final order dated 5.9.2009 and, thereby, the learned Commissioner appears to have violated the principle of natural justice. 3. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State, I direct the petitioner to approach the learned Divisional Commissioner alongwith copy of this order, thereafter, the petitioner be heard by the learned Divisional Commissioner and if he is satisfied that in terms of the Government policy, Boatmen Co-operative Society offering the amount of Reserve Jama, has preferential rights in matters of settlement of the Ghat, learned Commissioner shall pass orders in accordance with law. While passing the order, the Commissioner would also consider the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner, Md. Ibrahim never made any offer above Reserve Jama before the bid was knocked in favour of the 3 petitioner. 3. Till, the matter is reconsidered by the learned Divisional Commissioner in compliance of this order, the petitioner should not be asked to deposit the amount in the light of the order dated 8.10.2009 (Annexure-1/A/1) appended with the I.A. No. 6634 of 2009. Considering the fact that settlement is only for a year and is to be over shortly the learned Divisional Commissioner is directed to hear the matter afresh in compliance of this order within seven days of the receipt of the order and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. U.K. (V.N.Sinha,J)