CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1377 OF 1991 ---- A K Tripathi, J. In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----- 1. Jagannath Ram, son of late Mahendra Ram 2. Sunaina Devi, wife of Ramagyan Ram Both residents of village – Kishun Nagar, Anchal Kanti, P.S. Kanti, District – Muzaffarpur. ----------------- Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Anchal Adhikari, Kanti, District – Muzaffarpur. 3. Shri Budhan Ram, son of Baidyanath Ram, resident of Village Kishun Nagar, Anchal Kanti, P S – Kanti, District – Muzaffarpur -------------- Respondents For the petitioners: Mr. K. K. Thakur. For the State: Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, JC to SC 3. P R E S E N T THE HON`BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of respondent no.3 despite valid service of notice. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.1989 which has been passed by the Circle Officer, Kanti, in the district of Muzaffarpur by virtue of which he has issued Baskit Parcha in favour of private respondent No.3 while exercising power under Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1948. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners themselves fall within the definition of privileged persons under the Act because between them and their sister they have only 5 decimals of land on which they have constructed their dwelling house and are in possession of no other property or land. It is - 2 - the case that when respondent No.3 tried to create mischief they approached the Circle Officer with an application on 22.6.1989 but instead of the Circle Officer issuing notice in terms of section 5 (2) of the Act within two days of the application has passed in favour of respondent No.3. The adjudication therefore is no adjudication in the eyes of law because the proper procedure prescribed under the Act has not been followed. 4. No counter affidavit has been filed either by the State or by the private respondent. There is circumstance to show that the assertion made in this regard by the petitioners has basis to exist. In view of the same, the impugned order contained in annexure-1 dated 24.6.1989 is quashed. 5. The writ application is allowed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 12th December, 2008. (NAFR) R K Pathak.