IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14538 of 2003 1. Md. Yasin, 2. Md. Taiyyab, 3. Md. Mukhatar, sons of Zahiruddin, all resident of village- Manware, P.S. Jalalgarh, District- Purnea. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Bihar, 2. Collector, Purnea. 3. Anchaladhikari, Amour, District- Purnea. 4. Sk. Sukhan, son of Shabab Ali. 5. Hashim, son of Sk. Yunus, 6. Md. Muslim, son of Sk. Sukhan, 7. Md. Safoor Alam, son of Sk. Sukhan, All residents of village- Manware, P.S. Jalalgarh, District Purnea. 8. Rafiqur, 9. Fakhruddin, both sons of late Sk.Hadi, 10. Sk. Sattar, son of Sk. Chhotakan. All residents of village- Manware, P.S. Jalalgarh, District Purnea. .....Respondents. ----------- 04- 24.02.2010 Heard Mr. Raghib Ahsan for the petitioners, and Mr. Anwar Karim, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.5 for respondent nos.1 to 3. In spite of valid service of notices, respondent nos.4 to 10 have not entered appearance. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 17.6.2003 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Purnea, in purported exercise of powers under section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons 2 Homestead Tenancy Act, in Revenue Revision No.91 of 1999 (Md. Yashin and others vs. Sk. Sukhan and others), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioners has been rejected and the order dated 8.6.1999 (Annexure-2) , passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Amour, has been upheld. 3. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by registered sale-deeds, the petitioners acquired right, title and possession of the piece of land with respect to which Basgit Parcha has been issued to the aforesaid order of the Anchal Adhikari in a situation where they were not made parties to the proceedings before him, and they were not aware of the same. They had, therefore, no occasion to place their registered sale deeds before the learned Anchal Adhikari. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Collector also disposed of their revision application by a superficial order showing disinclination to go into the depth of the matter. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the 3 parties. It appears that the grievance raised by the petitioners is justified. There is no reference to their registered sale deeds in the orders of the learned Anchal Adhikari, or that of the learned revisional authority. I am of the view that, in order to do complete justice to the parties, the preferable course is to set aside the orders of the learned Anchal Adhikari and the revisional authority. The matter goes back on remand to the learned Anchal Adhikari, Amour, to consider the grievances of the petitioners after affording adequate opportunity to the parties including the petitioners herein who shall be permitted to place their evidence including the documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. 5. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/