The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court emphasized the importance of considering the facts of the earlier settlement and the decisions of various authorities in matters related to land settlement and homestead parcha under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947.

1. Heard Mr. Mathura Nath Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rang Nath Choubey appears for the private respondent nos. 5 to 10. State is represented by Mr. S.K. Giri, A.C. to S.C.-V.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved "by order dated 26.7.2002 passed by the Collector, Buxar in Case No. 3 of 1998 under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947.

3. It would be necessary to portray certain essential facts as under. In Settlement Case No. 19 of 1966-67, an area of 28 decimals of land appertaining to khata no. 30, plot no. 275 in Village-Nuaon, within Buxar Anchal of then District Shahabad (now district Buxar) was settled with the petitioner by order dated 26.12.1967 passed by the respondent no. 4 Anchal Adhikari, Buxar which was followed by delivery of possession. A Title Suit Np. 41 of 1968/ 163 of 1975 was filed by the petitioner for declaration of his title over the encroached portion of land in dispute plot no. 275 land in dispute as above and for removal of encroachment by the defendants including Balgobind Sah (father of respondent nos. 5 and 6), Jiut Sah (father of respondent no. 7), Kripal Gond (father of respondent no. 8), Hemraj Ahir (father of respondent no. 10) and others. Suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and defendants were directed to remove the encroachment by the court. Thereafter a Title Appeal No. 12 of 1976 was preferred by the defendants and due to the initiation of consolidation operations in the area concerned the appeal as well as suit and decree abated under Section 4(C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956. Thereafter, the petitioners moved before the Consolidation Officer, Buxar in the matter and the claim of the petitioner was allowed as per the order which is contained in Annexure-7 of this writ application. Subsequently, the respondents filed a petition before the DCLR, Buxar for annulling the aforesaid settlement and issuance of homestead parcha in their favour as they claim that they are having their homestead thereupon. It was contended in the aforesaid application, which is contained in Annexure- 3, that the settlement done in favour of the petitioner in the year 1965 is posing problem for them, therefore, the same be cancelled and homestead parcha should be issued in their favour. This application was filed in the year 1993. It appears that the Anchal Adhikari, Buxar passed an order for issuance of homestead parcha in favour of the concerned respondents. Aforesaid order was challenged by filing a writ application and the writ application was allowed by order dated 8.8.1994 as contained in Annexure-6 directing the authority concerned to redecide the matter afresh. However, the finding of the concerned Anchal Adhikari that the respondents are privileged persons within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Act was not disturbed. The matter again travelled to this court in CWJC No. 601 of 1996 and by order dated 28.1.1998 the Collector was directed to decide the issue. Thereafter, the Collector, Buxar on observing that the records were not available in his office directed for fresh spot verification local inspection. Relying thereupon, he had passed the impugned order dated 26.7.2002 upholding the earlier order of the Anchal Adhikari, Buxar, holding that the private respondents were residing upon the land in dispute after constructing a hut. As a result, he directed for issuance of homestead parcha in favour of the respondents concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order is patently illegal as the same has been passed without appreciation of the relevant fact. Learned counsel drew the attention of this court towards the application itself which was filed by the private respondents as contained in Annexure-3, wherefrom it is manifest that it was filed for the purpose of cancelling the settlement in favour of the petitioner and also for settling the land in favour of the applicants therein.