IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.61 of 2011 3 11.4.2011 Devi Mahto, Son of Late Jhuman Mahto, Resident of Village- Sonubigha, P.S. Kadiriganj, District Nawada ….. Petitioner/ Appellant VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Nawada 3. The Sub- divisional Officer, Nawada 4.The District Fishery Officer-cum- Chief Fishery Officer, Nawada 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nawada 6. The Circle Officer, Nawada 7. Ramdhani Mahto, Son of Late Rup Chandra Mahto, Resident of Village- Sonubigha, P.O. Kadiriganj, P.S. Nawada, District Nawada ….. Respondents/ Respondents -------- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition preferred by the appellant mainly on the ground that the learned DCLR while passing the impugned order dated 21.8.2009 in case no.1 of 2005-06 did not give any notice to the petitioner/ appellant and the order was ex parte. The matter has been remitted to the learned DCLR, Nawada to issue notice to both the parties as well as other concerned parties and persons who make a claim - 2 - over the lands in question and then to decide the issues within a period of six months on appearance of the parties. The questions to be decided by the DCLR have also been indicated in brief. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Writ Court should have decided the matter itself on the basis of documents relied upon by the appellant and in any case if a remand was necessary, it should have been an open remand without indicating issues. In our considered view, the order under appeal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity so as to require interference. This appeal is, however, disposed of with an observation that the learned DCLR, Nawadah shall, pursuant to order of remand decide the relevant issues in accordance with law on considering the documents and other submissions advanced on behalf of the parties including the appellant. It is also made clear that if the DCLR feels that some other issues are relevant to be decided in that event he may decide those issues also. This observation has been made in the light of - 3 - submission that learned DCLR may not have jurisdiction to decide the issues himself in view of an earlier order passed under Section 106 of the BT Act. This aspect of the matter is also covered by the order of remand as clarified by us that learned DCLR shall decide the matter in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that interim arrangement ordered by the Writ Court is against the interest of the appellant. In our view, the interim arrangement needs no interference because the time period has already been indicated for decision by the learned DCLR. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)