IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20150 of 2010 1. UMESH SAHNI S/O LATE BUDHAN SAHNI 2. LAXMAN SAHNI SON OF LATE UCHIT SAHNI BOTH ARE R/O VILL. TELWARA, P.S. KATRA, DIST. MUZAFFARPUR. --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR HAVING HIS OFFICE AT COLLECTORATE, MUZAFFAPUR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUZAFFARPUR. --- RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02 21.12.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 15.04.2010 passed by respondent Collector, Muzaffarpur in Misc. ( Jan Sikayat ) case no. 1476 of 2009. The said order was passed in view of the observation/direction made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12519 of 2009 ( Umesh Sahni vs. State of Bihar & ors.) and C.W.J.C. No. 7433 of 2009 ( Subans Sahni, Secretary, Katra Matyas Jivi Sahyog Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & ors.). Let it be recorded that both the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by an order dated 29.10.2009 (Annexure-9). Petitioner no.1 claims the settlement of land measuring 1 Bigha, 12 katha and 3 dhurs under cadastral Survey plot no. 216 and 266 from Bhoodan Yagna committee in the name of his father Budhan Sahni (petitioner no.1). Petitioner no.2 claims the land by virtue of settlement of 03 bighas, 16 kathas and 06 dhurs in his name by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. Respondent 2 Collector in the light of the order of this Court allowed the parties to adduce evidence before him and make submissions. On a consideration of the materials on record respondent Collector has found as under:- “…There is nothing on record to show that the donor had duly executed the said Danpatra. The alleged Dan Patra appears to have been never confirmed and not confirmed. The confirming authority the D.C.L.R. East confirmed that the alleged Dan Patra has never been confirmed under Section 11 of Bhoodan act by the DCLR court as per record. If any report or paper regarding confirmation of the said Dan patra is produced in any court that paper is fabricated and forged. The disputed land mentioned in the Bhoodan Yagna committee and it not vested to Bhoodan Yagna committee, the committee had no right to make settlement there of. The said Bhoodan papers do not appear to be genuine. It was never acted upon for the reasons given below. (a) That Bhoodani so called raiyat never got the rental fixed up by neither the L.R.D.C. concerned nor the Bhoodani raiyat of the disputed land if any ever paid any rent to the State of Bihar. The alleged settlement was never recognized by L.R.D.C. (b) The so-called Bhoodani raiyat never paid any rent for the disputed land (C) That if there was such Bhoodan papers and if there was any such alleged settlement why Umesh Sahni himself took settlement for the following period from Zila Parishad (i) 2004-2005 (ii) 2005-2006 (iii) 2006-2007 (d) Besides Umesh Sahni the following other persons:- also took settlement of the disputed jalkar from Zila Parishad (i) Sushil Kumar Singh- 2000-2001 (ii) Ram Umed Sahni- 2007-2008 Secretary Katra Anchal Matysa- Jivi Sahyog Samiti (iii) Chandeshwar Sahni Ex-Secretary 2008-2009 of the said Matyasa-Jivi Sahyog Samiti The settlement of the disputed jalkar is being made since long to the knowledge of Umesh Sahni and his ancestors without any objection from Umesh Sahni or his family members. The land is admittedly jalkar. It is not agricultural land. At the time of vesting it was never in khas- possession of the outgoing land holders namely, Maharaja Dhiraj Darbhanga. It vested in the 3 state of Bihar under the land reforms Act and to Maharaja Dhiraj Darbhanga had not right to donate the same nor actually it was donated nor it was settled by Bhoodan Yagan committee. The papers propounded by Umesh Sahni and Bhoodan Yagna committee are not genuine and are all suspicious. The original Danpatra or settlement paper or confirmation papers have not been filed at all and so the papers on record filed by Umesh Sahni cannot be construed as genuine.” The matter now stands concluded by finding of fact recorded by respondent Collector. After hearing the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that plenary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked in the present case in order to grant relief to the petitioners. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)