IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3546 of 2002 JAKIR MIAN Son of Hakik Mian, Resident of village- Paroraha, P.S. Sathi, Anchal Narkatiaganj, District- West Champaran ------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Narkatiaganj, District- West Champaran 4. The Circle Officer, Narkatiaganj, District- West Champaran 5. Usman Mian, 6. Mustaq Mian, Both sons of Late Ismile Mian, resident of village- Paroraha, P.s. Sathi, Anchal, Narkatiaganj, District- West Champaran 7. Mostt Harkesh Kuer W/O not known to the petitioner, resident of village- Ahiraulia, P.S. Shikarpur, District- Bettiah (West Chamaparan ----Respondents. --------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.B.K.Mangalam, Advocate For the Respondent No.5,6 & 7: Mr. K.K.Tiwary,Advocate For the State : Mr. Amar Karim,J.C.to S.C.V ---------- 7. 4-Feb-09 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, respondent Nos. 5 to 7 and State. Petitioner challenges the order dated 19.12.2001 as contained in Annexure -5 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Narkatiaganj (respondent No.3) whereby he set aside the order 2 dated 29.5.2001 (Annexure-4) passed by the Circle Officer allowing the application of the petitioner under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.3 committed serious error of law in discarding the report of the Circle Officer based on his local inspection and set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer as contained in Annexure-4. It is further submitted that if the respondent–Sub-Divisional Officer was not satisfied with the report of the Circle Officer, he ought to have directed for further inquiry with regard to the question of possession since both the parties were claiming possession over the land in question. The respondents were claiming possession on the basis of the report of the “Halka Karmchari” and “Amin” whereas petitioner was claiming their respective possession on the basis of local inspection made by the Circle Officer. Learned counsel submits that in view of the rival claims regarding possession, the appellate authority ought to have remanded back the matter to the respondent No.4 for passing 3 fresh order and as such it has been submitted that let the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.2 be directed to be considered afresh after giving notice to both sides. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the order passed by the respondent No.4 on the application of the petitioner was rightly set aside by the respondent no.3 as per the impugned order as contained in Annexure -5. However, if the matter is considered afresh by the respondent no.4, he will have no objection. Considering the submission of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that the question with regard to the possession as claimed by the petitioner as well as the respondents needs to be considered afresh on consideration of relevant documents as submitted by the parties as well. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 29.5.2001 (Annexure -4) as well as order dated 19.12.2001 (Annexure-5) is quashed. The petitioner will be at liberty to file a fresh application giving relevant details and the supporting documents in support of his claim 4 before the Respondent No.4 which shall be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with above observation/direction. chauhan (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)