IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1329 of 2002 ***** Sri Bishwanath Sah son of Sri Jageshwar Sah, Resident of village-Balha Punarvas Tola, P.O., P.S. and Anchal-Mansi, District-Khagaria. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector-cum-D.M., Khagaria. 3. The C.O. Chautham Anchal, District-Khagaria. 4. The C.O. Mansi Anchal, District-Khagaria. 5. Saryug Sah son of Late Dahu Sah. 6. Deo Narayan Prasad Son of Late Harihar Sah, Resident of village- Balha Bazar, P.O., P.S. and Anchal-Mansi, District-Khagaria. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate Mr. Binay Kumar Bineet, Advocate Mr. Md. Najmul Hoda, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anwar Karim, A.C. Standing Counsel-V For Respondent No. 5 & 6: Mr. Dronacharya, Advocate ---------- 5. 6.2.2009. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.12.2001, which has been passed by the District Magistrate, Khagaria in Misc. Case No.92/95-96. The order has the effect of canceling the parcha under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’), which was issued to the petitioner earlier in the year 1985-86, which would be evident from the order dated 1.3.1986 contained in Annexure-2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is a poor man and a landless person and falls within the definition of the Act. He was residing on a plot of land at Village-Balha having 14 dhurs. He constructed a house on the same in the year 1975. The land, according to the petitioner, belonged to one Rai Bahadur Dilip Narayan of Munger. - 2 - In the year 1984 petitioner approached the Circle Officer of Chautham Block for grant of basgit parcha. The application of the petitioner was registered as Homestead Parcha Case No.4/84-85. The Circle Officer after due enquiry granted parcha in favour of the petitioner on 1.3.1986. Petitioner, therefore, has been in possession of the said property thereafter. It is stated by the petitioner that private respondent nos. 5 and 6 have evil eye on the house and land of the petitioner and, therefore, they filed a miscellaneous case before the District Magistrate of Khagaria, which came to be registered as Misc. Case No.92/95-96. The matter remained pending before the District Magistrate for a long time but finally by the impugned order dated 26.12.2001 contained in Anenxure-1 the Parcha granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. Petitioner has challenged this order, therefore, in the present writ application. Basic submission of the petitioner is that in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the settlement made in favour of the petitioner on 1.3.1986 attained finality. The power of revision conferred upon the Collector under Section 21 was incorporated by an amendment in the year 1989. In that view of the matter, the 1989 amendment cannot be utilized for reopening a settled issue. Petitioner relies on a Division Bench decision rendered in the case of Om Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, 2004(2) PLJR 621, where the Court was of the opinion that settlement made prior to the amendment brought about in the year 1989, cannot be utilized for reopening settled issues as Section 21 cannot be applied retrospectively. - 3 - A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondent nos. 5 and 6, where they have stated that the settlement has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Petitioner has his own homestead land as well as pucca residential house and is not a privileged person. The parcha has been issued in connivance with the local Block officials and that too not over a raiyati land but a land which is vested in the State of Bihar. Petitioner has in fact purchased land in the name of his wife in the year 1981 as well as in the year 1984. Petitioner has manipulated the local authorities to grab the valuable piece of land, which is sairat land. It is further submitted that the prescribed procedure had not been followed in terms of Rule 3 read with Rule 5(2). A settlement made in breach of the provisions in this regard, cannot give a right in favour of the petitioner. Further the Halka Karamchari has given a report for grant of basgit parcha for only 6 dhurs but the Circle Inspector has endorsed grant of parcha for 14 dhurs. All these show the casual manner in which the enquiry had been made and the settlement made in favour of the petitioner. Respondents have relied on decision rendered in the case of Bikrama Thakur v. State of Bihar, 2004(2) PLJR 265, where it has been held that if by misrepresentation or by mistake if a public land has been settled in favour of a person then the public had a locus to maintain a revision application, even in the case it is urged that a revision was not maintainable. Reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered in the case of Mostt. Shila Devi v. State of Bihar, 2002(1) PLJR 638, where it has been held by the Division Bench that the Collector can on his own motion or on a petition, call for the records and after being satisfied, - 4 - reopen the matter and cancel the parcha obtained through fraudulent means and material suppression. From perusal of the narration of pleading of the parties read with the order of the District Magistrate contained in Annexure-1, the Court comes to a considered opinion that a kind of wishy washy enquiry had been held by the Circle Officer, Chautham, while issuing basgit parcha in favour of the petitioner. If there is evidence to show that the petitioner does not come within the category of a privileged person or that the land in question was a gair mazarua land, then obviously the Collector had reasons to interfere with the said settlement. The District Magistrate has passed a detailed reasoned order justifying the conclusion he has reached. In the opinion of this Court, the order needs no interference. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)