IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5734 of 2004 KAPILDEO NRAYAN SINGH @ KAPILDEO NARAIN SINHA Son of late Babu Raj Kumar Singh, R/o Bhagwan Bazar, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, Town and District Chapra ……..Petitioner. Versus 1.CHAPRA MUNICIPALITY through the Chairman, Chapra Municipality Chowk, Chapra. 2.The Executive Officer, Chapra Municipality, Chapra, Municipality Chowk, Chapra. 3.Braj Bhushan Prasad son of Sarikhan Roy R/o Imam Ganj, Araya Nagar, P.S. Town Chapra, Town and District- Chapra. Respondents. ----------- 4 30.03.2011 Heard the parties. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside the order dated 24.02.2004(Annexure-7) passed by the Executive Officer, Chapra Municipality in Case No. 126 of 2003-04, whereby in purported exercise of powers under Section 107 of Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act, 1922(in short Act) holding No. 601 has been directed to be created in favour of respondent no.3 with respect to certain lands purchased by him through sale deed dated 09.12. 2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of order primarily on two grounds namely; before passing the impugned order reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to all concerned persons including the petitioner and secondly, final order has been passed without making proper inquiry with respect to lands in dispute. He further submits that since the impugned order (Annexure-7) has been passed in 2 violation of the principles of natural justice, therefore, it cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the matter is required to be reconsidered a fresh by the authority concerned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3, though has tried to defend the order passed by the respondent Executive Officer, but has fairly conceded that counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 in the present case disputing the assertion made in the writ petition. He submits that notice was ordered to be issued in general, which will be deemed to have been served on all concerned. After having heard the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 24.02.2004 (Annexure-7) has been passed not only in violation of principles of natural justice, but also in violation of mandatory provision of Section 107(2) of the Act, which mandates issuance of notice to all persons interested while exercising power under Section 107(1)(b) of the Act. Since both the parties claim to have purchased the land in dispute through registered sale deeds and claim that the holding should be created in their favour on the basis of those sale deeds, therefore, the matter is required to be heard a fresh by the competent authority for creating new holding either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of the respondent no.3 with respect to the lands in question. For the reasons recorded, the impugned order dated 3 24.02.2004 passed in Case No. 126 of 2003-04 (annexure7) is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent nos. 2 for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and respondent no.3 undertake that the parties shall appear with certified copy of the present order within a period of four weeks from today, whereafter respondent no.2 or any other competent officer under the provision of Act shall be obliged to decide the matter afresh by a speaking order within a period of three months. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the application stands allowed. No costs. Rahman/ ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)