(1.) Heard Mr. Amrit Abhijat, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Yogeshwar Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents.
(2.) The petitioner in this writ petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed to set aside the order of settlement passed by the respondent-Settlement Officer in Settlement Case No. 5 of 1992-93 in so far as it orders for settlement of the plot of the petitioner bearing Plot Nos. 136 and 137 of Khata No. 107 at village Mohanpur Math P.S. Harlakhi in the district of Madhubani. It is not in dispute rather is an admitted position that by virtue of the settlement order issued in favour of 50 persons, a portion of the land so claimed by the petitioner stands occupied and the beneficiaries have registered appearance through a counsel Mr. Yogendra Kumar.
(3.) Mr. Amrit Abhijat learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter relates to the district of Madhubani and the petitioner is the Mahant of the public trust registered under the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1950 and is owner of the several plots of land in and across the State. He submits that the present dispute relates to Plot No. 136 and 137 of Khata No. 107 in Mauza Mohanpur in the district of Madhubani and whereas Plot No. 136 admeasures 3 acres and 58 decimals of which settlement orders has been passed in respect of 2 acres and 24 decimals, therefrom, Plot No. 137 admeasures 2 acres 3 decimals and 1 acre and 93 decimals there from have been utilized by the respondents for the settlement in question. Mr. Amrit Abhijat learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the proceedings present at Annexures- 1 and 2 submitted that a ceiling proceeding was initiated against the trust under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') giving rise to Land Ceiling (Surplus) Case No. 17 of 1973-74 but the said proceeding was dropped by the Sub Divisional Officer vide order passed on 31.3.1981 placed at Annexure-1 inter alia on grounds that the land possessed by the petitioner trust was found to be the below the ceiling limit. He next refers to the district gazette dated 1.2.1982 to submit that Schedule-II of the Gazette confirms that the respondents being satisfied that the petitioner owned 22 acres and 3 decimals of land dropped the proceedings. Plot No 136 admeasuring 3 acres and 58 decimals is mentioned in the Schedule. Schedule III of the said Gazette lists such of the plots which was donated by the trust. To support the claim of the petitioner over Plot No. 137, learned counsel has relied upon a copy of the continuous Khatiyan placed at Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit and with reference thereto it is contended by Mr. Abhijat that the action of the respondents is engulfed with illegality inasmuch as they first have been initiated proceedings for cancellation of the Jamabandi of the petitioner giving rise to Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 1 of 1992-93 and though the Circle Officer vide order passed on 2.12.1992 (Annexure-2) did recommend for cancellation thereof, but there is nothing on record of the proceedings to show whether the recommendation was acted upon. He submits that the respondents proceeding on the premise that the Jamabandi of the petitioner stood cancelled, has further perpetuated the illegality to initiate Settlement Case No. 5 of 1992-93 and where under they have proceeded to settle 2 acres and 24 decimals from Plot No. 136 and 1 acre 93 decimals from Plot No. 137 of the petitioner in favour of the private respondents without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner either at the stage of cancellation of Jamabandi or at the stage of passing of the order in the settlement proceeding.