IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.646 of 2011 ------------ Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 6th December 2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16594 of 2009. --------- 1. Dwarika Prasad , S/O Late Ram Narayan Rai, R/O Village Budhra, P.S.- Athmalgola, district- Patna. 2. Vishwa Nath Rai, S/O Late Ram Deo rai, R/O Village- Budhra, P.S. Athmalgola, district- Patna. 3. Ram Pravesh Rai, S/O Late Mishri Rai 4. Jamun Rai, S/O Late Sri Rai 5. Sheoji rai, S/O Late Ram Das rai 6. Radhe Rai, S/O Late Baleshwar Rai Petitioner nos. 3 to 6 R/O Village- Ganjpar, P.O. + P.S. Athmalgola, District- Patna.................. Appellants Versus 1. Laxmi Narayan Ram, S/O Ram Uchit Ram, Village- Ram Nagar, Diyara, P.S.- Athmalgola, district- Patna... Petitioner-Respondent 2. The State of Bihar through Secretary Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate- Patna 4. The Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna. 5. The Superintendent of Police, Barh, Patna 6. The Subdivisional Officer, Barh, Patna 7. The Circle Officer, Athmalgola, Patna. 8. The Officer-Incharge, Athmalgola, P.S. Patna..... ... Respondents. ------- ---------------------------------- 4 2-8-2011 Heard the parties. According to learned counsel for the appellants respondent no.1,Laxmi Narayan Ram, son of Ram Uchit Ram, resident of village- Ram Nagar Diyara, P.S. Athmalgola, district- Patna committed a fraud and obtained Purcha under the Bihar Privileged Person Homestead Tenancy Act, 1948 behind the back of the appellant without 2 any notice. According to learned counsel for the appellants the purcha issued over an area of 62.5 decimals of land belongs to Ram Nagar Diyara having Tauzi no. 8705 (wrongly mentioned as 8905 at various places) which belongs to the appellants out of a much larger plot having an area of 176 Bighas. According to the appellants this Tauzi is a surveyed land but no plot nos are available for the lands in question because it is Diyara land. The other grievance raised on behalf of appellants is that writ petition bearing no. C.W.J.C. No. 16594 of 2009 was preferred by respondent no.1 herein without impleading the land-lord i.e. the appellant and that writ petition was disposed of finally on 6-12-2010 without notice to the appellants. Apparently the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 did not implead any private person and hence, prima facie his claim was only against the State and its officials. In such circumstances, if the appellants have sufficient materials to show interest and title over the land which has been allegedly settled with respondent no.1, the appellant should either file a writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs including review of order dated 6-12-2010 or may file a 3 review petition on the ground that he is adversely affected by the order and he is the necessary party who ought to have been heard before the writ petition was finally disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is disposed of with a liberty to the appellants that if so advised, they may file a writ petition or review petition seeking appropriate reliefs or review of the order dated 6- 12-2010, subject matter of the present appeal. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey, J)