IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1826 of 2011 1. JAI NANDAN PRASAD S/O JAGDISH NARAYAN BHAGAT R/O VILL. PACHLAKH, P.S. KHIZARSARAI, DIST. GAYA --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, DISTRICT, GAYA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, NIMCHAK BATHANI AT. KHIZARSARAI, DIST. GAYA 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI KHIZARSARAI, DIST. GAYA 5. RAMJEE PRASAD YADAV SON OF SITA RAM YADAV R/O VILL. AAIMACHAUKI, P.S. KHIZARSARAI ---RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02 03.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 11.08.2010, passed by respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nimchak Bathani, in Misc. case no. 05 of 2002-03 ( Ramjee Prasad Yadav vs. Sukiya Devi & Ors.). By the said order respondent D.C.L.R., in the light of order dated 14.10.2009 passed in the said settlement case, has directed for cancellation of settlement made in favour of mother of the writ petitioner in respect of 08 decimals of land appertaining to Khata no. 459, plot no. 2724, situated in village Aaima Chauki, in the District of Gaya. The case of the writ petitioner’s is that the aforesaid settlement was made in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner by issuance of ‘Parwana’ (Annexure-1), in pursuance of settlement case no. 30/1993-94/1994-95, which was followed by mutation and grant of receipts. On an objection preferred by respondent no. 5, Misc. case no. 5 of 2002-03 was initiated in the Court of respondent D.C.L.R., who by order dated 16.12.2004 (Annexure-5), found that the mother of the writ petitioner was eligible for such settlement and, therefore, 2 did not interfere with such settlement. Aggrieved thereby, respondent no. 5 preferred a proceeding before respondent Collector vide Settlement case no. 11 of 2007-08. The respondent Collector by order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure-6), set aside the aforesaid order of the respondent D.C.L.R., and remanded the case back to the said Court for fresh hearing and order within a specified period. Thereafter the matter was taken up by the respondent D.C.L.R., who vide order dated 14.10.2009 (Annexure -7), found that the mother of the petitioner was not eligible/entitled to be settled Government land(s) in terms of the provision of the Bihar Tenancy Act and, accordingly, recommended for cancellation of settlement made in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner. In accord with the aforesaid findings/observations, the impugned order dated 11.08.2010 (Annexure-8), has been passed by the respondent D.C.L.R. whereby settlement made in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner was cancelled, and the respondent Anchal Adhikari was directed to take recourse to the provision of the Encroachment Act for removal of encroachment on the land(s) earlier settled with the mother of the writ petitioner leading to the present writ petition. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that aggrieved by order dated 14.10.2009, passed by respondent D.C.L.R., the writ petitioner has already preferred an appeal vide Settlement Appeal no. 65 of 2009, before the respondent Collector in which several date(s) have been fixed but owing to the fact that the Collector 3 was not available to hold the Court, the matter is being adjourned. Relying on Annexure -9 to the supplementary affidavit, which is order sheet of Settlement appeal no. 65 of 2009 pending in the Court of respondent Collector, Gaya it is contended that the said matter is now fixed for 11.02.2011. It is the submission of the petitioner that during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the impugned order has been passed setting aside the cancellation of settlement made in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner, and issuing a direction to evict her/him from the land(s) in question by adopting laid down procedure and as such, the same is required to be interfered with and set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submits that mere filing of appeal will not amount to stay of the order appealed. Petitioner was required to seek interim order/stay from the said Court which has not been done. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. By order dated 14.10.2009, a finding has already been recorded that the mother of the petitioner was not entitled to settlement of the land(s) in view of her status being not a landless lady. It has also been found therein that such settlement was causing obstruction to the villagers at large. Accordingly, recommendation was made for cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner. By the order impugned, respondent D.C.L.R. has cancelled the settlement made in favour of the mother of the writ petitioner and has further directed for taking steps for eviction of the settlee (mother of the writ 4 petitioner) from the land(s) earlier settled with her. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the second part of the order wherein a direction has been issued to evict the writ petitioner from the land(s) in question requires interference since an appeal is already pending at the instance of the writ petitioner before the respondent Collector. In that view of the matter, this Court quashes that part of the impugned order wherein a direction was issued to Anchal Adhikari, Khizarsarai to take steps for removal of encroachment from the land(s) in question after adopting the procedure prescribed in law. It is further clarified that the impugned order dated 11.08.2010 with all its contents shall abide by the final adjudication to be made by respondent Collector in Settlement Appeal no. 65 of 2009 which is said to be pending before the respondent Collector, Gaya at the instance of the writ petitioner. Application stands disposed of with aforesaid direction/observation(s). Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)