IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11901 of 2008 Nand Lal Uraon, son of Etwati Uraon, village Hansda, PS Sadar, district Purnea – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Purnea. 3. The Circle Officer, Purnea East, PS K. Hat, Purnea. 4. Mantu Uraon, son of Ghota Uraon. 5. Pradeep Uraon, son of Mantu Uraon, 6. Chhotu Uraon, sonof Mantu Uraon, 7. Rushiya Devi, wife of Kishun Uraon, village Hansda, PS Sadar, Dist. Purnea – respondents. 4 21.7.2009 In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 16.1.2000 passed by the Circle Officer, Purnea and the order, dated 16.5.2008 passed by the Collector, Purnea. By the impugned order, dated 16.1.2000 the Circle Officer on the basis of an enquiry issued parcha to respondents 4 to 7 under the Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Respondents 4 to 7 had made an application that they should be issued parcha for 11 decimals of land appertaining to khata nos. 192 and 152, khesra no.120. On 6.11.2000 the Circle Officer passed an order that notices ought to be issued to the land holder and fixed the date on 14.11.2000. The order sheet indicates that no order was passed on 14.11.2000 and on 16.11.2000 the respondents’ prayer for being granted parcha was allowed. The said order, dated 16.11.2000 states that the petitioner had received notice. When the petitioner came to know about the said order, he appeared before the Collector and challenged it, which was dismissed on the ground that it was time barred. The case of the petitioner is that he is the land holder 2 and without being given any notice at any stage and certainly not at the stage of making enquiry as required under the Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, the order has been passed behind his back. It is submitted that the enquiry ought to have been held by the authority and proper notice ought to have been given to the petitioner before granting parcha to the respondents. The second submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondents have filed an affidavit in this court enclosing an agreement to sell the land in question to the respondents by father of the petitioner in 1990. The sale deed was not executed as it is said that father of the petitioner died. The submission is that the story of settlement, therefore, appears to be doubtful as if the respondents were settlees, then there could not have been agreement for sale. This matter should also be considered, in the light of the recitations made in the agreement itself. In any event the petitioner ought to have been noticed as required under rule 5 of the Rules before final order would have been passed. I accordingly quash the orders, dated 16.1.2000 and 16.5.2008 passed by the Circle Officer and the Collector, Purnea and remand the matter back to the Circle Officer, Purnea for reconsideration after issuing notices to the parties and after holding local enquiry in which also both the parties should be noticed to appear. At this stage counsel for the respondents submits that as 3 a result of the order, dated 15.11.2000 khatiyan has already been prepared in their names and they are also paying rent to the State of Bihar and as such they should not be disturbed. In order to maintain law and order I direct that status quo should be maintained over the land during the pendency of the proceeding. It would be proper that the Circle Officer should conclude the proceeding within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order after following all due process of law. The parties concerned are directed to cooperate with the Circle Officer and appear on the date fixed by him for hearing the matter. The final preparation of Khatiyan will naturally depend on the outcome of the proceeding and neither party can get advantage of the interim orders passed by the Courts during the continuance of the proceedings. This writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid directions and observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)