IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15446 of 2007 Badari Chaudhary, S/o Late Vishuni Chaudhary, resident of Village- Saraiya Mallahi Toli, P.S. Bairia, District- West Champaran, Bettiah. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 3. The Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Block- Bairiya, District- Bettiah. 6. Pradip Prasad, S/o Late Saudagar Prasad, Resident of Village- Saraiya, P.S. Bairiya, District- West Champaran, Bettiah. ...... Respondents. ----------- 02- 4.3.2009 Heard Mr. Ramchandra Sahni for the petitioner, and Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, learned Assistant Counsel to Government Advocate no.5, for respondent nos.1 to 5. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure-6), passed by respondent no.3, whereby he has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent no.6 herein, namely, Settlement Appeal Case No.29 of 2007-08 (Pradip Prasad Vs. Badari Choudhary), and has set aside the order of settlement dated 2.3.2005 (Annexure-3), passed by respondent no.4, in favour of the petitioner herein. We do not feel the necessity of issuing notice to 2 respondent no.6 in view of the nature of the order that we are proposed to pass. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner herein had filed an application for settlement of lands which was numbered as Case No.22 of 2004-05/21 of 2004-05. The petitioner’s application was allowed by the order dated 2.3.2005 (Annexure-3), passed by respondent no.4, whereby the following lands were directed to be settled in favour of the petitioner: Hkwfe dk izdkj [kkrk ua0 [ksljk ua0 {ks=Qy Edku e; 25 637/1 0.04 Dec. Lkgu 637/2 0.04 Dec. 0.08 Dec. Parcha was issued, a photo copy whereof is marked Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.6 herein preferred appeal which has been allowed by the impugned order. The learned appellate authority has held that the land in question is raiyati land and, therefore, could not have been settled by the state Government. Respondent no.4 committed grave error of not following the prescribed procedure and general 3 notice was not issued inviting objections. It thus appears to me that the settlement in question has been cancelled by the impugned order for valid reasons. The same cannot be faulted. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/