IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20707 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Shanti Sinha w/o- Late Raj Narayan Sinha, 2. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha, s/o- Late Raj Narayan Sinha Both residents of village Mushapur, P.O., P.S and District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Samastipur. 2. The Collector, Samastipur. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Samastipur. 4. The Circle Officer, Samastipur. 5. Hariballabh Prasad Singh, s/o- name not known, resident of Kashipur, P.O., P.S. and District- Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nivedita Nirvikar GP3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 2 05-12-2011 Heard both sides. Only grievance of the petitioner in respect of the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Samastipur is that without affording an opportunity of hearing, the order was passed in respect of R.S. Plot No. 1229 (arising out of C.S. Plot No. 351). It is the stand of the petitioners that the aforesaid plot stood in the name of ancestor of the petitioners. Learned counsel also contended that the order passed is blanket in nature which could not have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing by issuing notice to a person having interest Patna High Court CWJC No.20707 of 2011 (2) dt.05-12-2011 2 in the land. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner in that event can approach the said authority for reconsideration of the matter. It is also contended that the subject matter of the present dispute is not governed by the provisions in the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009. To this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 does not provide for review. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, in my view, the petitioner may be granted opportunity to file an application for recall/reconsideration of the matter. Since the petitioner, according to them, were not made party to the proceeding and as such question of review in the present case would not arise. No order affecting interest of any person can be passed without affording an opportunity. Petitioner is thus granted liberty to approach the said respondent for recall/reconsideration of the matter within four weeks from today along with a copy of the present order. If any such application is filed in the manner indicated above, the said respondent shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. This Court clarifies that the order dated 9.12.2010 passed in Land Dispute Resolution Case No. 18(A) of 2010, in that Patna High Court CWJC No.20707 of 2011 (2) dt.05-12-2011 3 event, shall not come in the way of the respondent. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)