IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9316 of 2010 1. SHANTI DEVI W/O LATE PRADEEP CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- BHANDARI P.O. & P.S. BELSAND DISTT.- SITAMARHI --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 3. COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI 4. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI 5. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BELSAND, DISTT.- SITAMARHI 6. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, BELSAND, SITAMARHI 7. CIRCLE OFFICER, BELSAND, SITAMARHI 8. CIRCLE INSPECTOR, BELSAND, SITAMARHI 9. SHANTI DEVI W/O SAHDEO MAHTO R/O VILL.- BHANDARI, P.O. & P.S. BELSAND DISTT.- SITAMARHI --- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 25.6.2010 The petitioner has come to this Court for implementation of the order dated 18.10.2006 and 16.11.2006 by which it has been recommended that the settlement made in favour of respondent no. 3 should be cancelled. In view of the findings of the S.D.O. in the order dated 18.10.2006 the facts that have emerged in this case are that the petitioner had been granted settlement of 8 decimals of land of plot no. 2398. After the settlement order, the petitioner came to know that out of the said plot which measures a total of 8 decimals, 3 decimals had already been settled in favour of the respondents no. 9 and as such she filed CWJC No. 14381 of 2004 claiming that the entire land should be settled in her favour. This Court after considering the rival contentions of the parties found that the petitioner was in possession of 5 decimals of land whereas, the respondent no. 9 was in possession of the remaining 3 decimals of the land and as such the writ application was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed LPA numbered as LPA No. 966 of 2005 which was also dismissed considering the findings of the single 2 Bench. Thereafter an application was filed by a person who was not affected by the orders of settlement before the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. It appears that a letter was issued by the authority aforesaid to enquire into the matter which has resulted in the order passed by the S.D.O. dated 18.10.2006 in which spot verification was apparently made and the S.D.O. found that the petitioner is in possession of the entire 8 decimals of land and, therefore, has made a recommendation for cancellation of the respondent’s settlement. This Court cannot give any direction to the S.D.O. or the Collector to cancel the settlement of the respondent no. 9 in view of the fact that the S.D.O. and the Collector could not have sat over the orders of this Court. In any view of the fact, the petitioner would have the liberty to file a review against the order dated 1.9.2005 passed in L.P.A. No. 966 of 2005. This application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)