IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14850 of 2007 1. Kishun Yadav 2. Sarjug Yadav both sons of Late Beni Yadav 3. Rama Nand Yadav son of Prekh Yadav 4. Ghan Shyam Yadav 5. Thakuri Yadav 6. Baldeo Yadav all sons of Late Kebal Yadav 7. Bhuna Yadav son of Late Gulab Yadav 8. Most Phulba Devi wife of Late Arjun Yadav 9. Ragho Yadav son of Late Chuba Yadav 10. Kashi Yadav son of Late Chuba Yadav 11. Choudhary Yadav 12. Baidnath Yadav both sons of Late Akal Yadav 13. Aash Yadav son of Late Bhatu Yadav 14. Gopal Yadav son of Late Kanshi Yadav 15. Most Ziya Devi wife of Late Gokhul Yadav resident of village Gobindpur P.S. Jhajha Dist. Jamuai 16. Dhobi Yadav son of Late Ram Dayal Yadav 17. Dhathuri Yadav son of Late Ram Dayal Yadav 18. Most Amia Devil wife of Late Santosh Yadav All resident of village Sapa tola , Kathan P.S. Laxmipur Dist. Jamuai 19. Musha Yadav son of Late Pachu Yadav 20. Ram Chandar Yadav son of Late Pachu Yadav 21. Azay Yadav son of Late Panchu Yadav All resident of village Gobindpur P.S. Jhajha Dist. Jamuai 22. Teko Yadav son of Late Basudeo Yadav 23. Raj Kumar Yadav son of late Basudeo Yadav all resident of village Gobindpur P.S. Jhajha Dist. Jamuai Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger 3. The Additional Collector, Jamuai 4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamui 5. The Circle Officer, Laxmipur Dist. Jamui Respondents Ist lset 6. Lilia Devi@ Sona Devi wife of Luchan Yadav 7. Kaushalya Devi @ Kashna wife of Jhagru 8. Manju Devi wife of Ramji Yadav 9. Geeta Devi wife of Bela Yadav 10. Sibni Devi wife of Surendra Yadav 11. Ruba Devi @ Seemi wife of Sudanand Yadav All resident of village Dhigra tola Kalwadish, P.S.Jhajha Dist. Jamuai Respondents 2nd set ----------- 2 03.03.2009 Heard Mr Ramadhar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Assistant counsel to learned Government - 2 - Pleader no.1, for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.6.1997 (Annexure 4), passed by respondent no.3, in Misc. Case no. 2/1997-98, whereby he has rejected the appeal preferred by the present petitioners. It relates to settlement of the Government lands in favour of respondents no 6 to 11 Respondents no. 1 to 5 have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the impugned order. A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the case may be indicated. Respondents no. 6 to 11 had filed applications before the respondent authorities for settlement of the government lands on the ground that they belonged to backward community and were in possession of the lands in question. Their joint application is marked annexure l to the writ petition. The Circle Inspector had made a local inspection and submitted report wherein it had been stated that respondents no. 6 to 11 were in possession of the lands in question. This was followed by the order dated 24.1.1997 (Annexure 2) whereby he directed for publication of general notice. By the order dated 17.2.1997(Annexure 3), respondent no.5 noted that no objection had been received, and respondents no. 6 to 11 were in possession of the lands in question and accordingly recommended settlement of the lands in question in their favour . On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned Subdivsisonal Officer, Jamui, passed the order dated 17.2.1997 (Annexure 3), settling the lands in question in the following manner: dz0 uke [kkrk [ksljk jdok 1- ykspu ;kno 385 1991 0-42 - 3 - 2- >x: ;kno iRuh Þ 1991 0-42 dq’kek nsoh 3- jketh iRuh eatq nsoh Þ 1991 0-42 4- csyk ;kno iRuh xhrk nsoh Þ 1991 0-42 5- lqjsUnz ;kno iRuh Þ 1991 0-42 lksHkuh nsoh 6- lnkuUn ;kno iRuh Þ 1991 0-45 lhek nsoh &&&&&&&&&&&&&&& 2-55 Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that respondents no. 6 to 11 are members of the backward community are in possession of the lands in question, the lands are of no use to the State Government, and the case of respondents no. 6 to 11 is based on local inspection report. The petitioners had also moved respondent no.2 who rejected the same by his order dated 3.3.2005 (Annexure 5), on the ground of non-prosecution of the application, passed in Land Settlement Revision Case no. 1/1997-98( Kishun Yadav & others vs Liliya Devi & others). It is thus evident that the settlements have been made in favour of respondents no. 6 to 11 after conducting local inspection which was to the effect that they are members of backward community, and in possession of the lands in question. General notice was published and objection was received. It thus appears to me that the prescribed procedure was followed before making settlement of the lands in question in favour of respondents no. 6 to 11. Respondents no. 1 to 5 have also stated in their counter affidavit that the same is as per the policy decision of the State Government. It thus - 4 - appears that no ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is dismissed. shahid (S.K.Katriar, J)