IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.964 of 2001 RAM PRAKASH MAHTO & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the petitioners : M/S Birendra Prasad Verma(Sr.Adv.) Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, Yogendra Kumar, R.N. Ray, Manish Kumar, Advocates. For the Private Respondents :Mr. Binod Prasad Singh, Advocate. ----------- 09. 24.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for private respondent no.4. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.3.1985 passed by the Circle Officer, Barauni, Respondent No.3 in Basgit Purcha Case No.16 of 1984-85, Annexure-1 whereunder Purcha has been issued in favour of private respondent no. 4 for the lands in question. They are further aggrieved by the appellate order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the Collector, Begusarai, Respondent No.2 in Revenue Case No. 22 of 1999, Annexure-6 whereunder appeal filed against the order granting Purcha in favour of private respondent no.4 was dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Basgit Purcha Case No. 16 of 1984-85 was initiated against petitioner Nos. 3 and 8 but even without serving notice of the proceeding on them order dated 16.3.1985, Annexure-1 was passed directing issue of Purcha in favour of private respondent no.4 for the lands in question. - 2 - 3. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the other petitioners were not even made parties in the said proceeding. Petitioners learnt about the order dated 16.3.1985 as also the Purcha, Annexure-2 only after service of notice dated 13.8.1999, Annexure-4 that they have encroached portion of the lands for which private respondent no.4 has been given Purcha. After receipt of the notice petitioners made further enquiry and learnt that private respondent no.4 is neither a privileged person nor a privileged tenant yet has been given Purcha for their lands and filed Revenue Case No. 22 of 1999 before the Collector of the District in which a report was called for from the Circle Officer who submitted report dated 16.5.2000, Annexure-5 and clarified the position that private respondent no.4 is neither a privileged person nor a privileged tenant but had eagle eye over the lands in question and accordingly, persuaded the then Circle Officer, who issued Purcha for the lands in question in his favour. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that without taking into account the aforesaid report dated 16.5.2000, Annexure-5, order dated 20.10.2000, Annexure- 6 was passed dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation with direction to restore possession of the lands in question in favour of private respondent no.4. Petitioners thereafter assailed the two orders dated 16.3.1985 and - 3 - 20.10.2000, Annexures- 1 and 6 by filing the present writ case. 4. In compliance of the orders of this Court private respondent no.4 has appeared through counsel and has submitted that the findings recorded in the report dated 16.5.2000, Annexure-5 does not reflect the correct state of affairs as private respondent no.4 is not only a privileged person but also a privileged tenant under the petitioners and appreciating such fact order dated 16.3.1985, Annexure-1 directing for issue of Purcha with respect to the lands in question was passed on the basis of which Purcha, Annexure-2 was issued and private respondent no.4 is in possession of the lands in question even prior to the issue of Purcha. In this connection, it was further submitted that during the pendency of this application petitioners even attempted to recover possession of the lands in question from the private respondent no.4 then the matter was reported to the police on 04.6.2008, Vide application of the said date which is contained in Annexure-A series on the basis of which enquiry was made and the report submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Begusarai on the basis of which case No. 306 of 2008 was instituted and proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated. The report is dated 10.6.2008 and is contained in Annexure-A series. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am - 4 - satisfied that the earlier order directing for issue of Purcha in favour of private respondent no.4 was passed behind the back of the petitioners as in the said proceeding only petitioner nos.3 and 8 were impleaded as parties and the remaining petitioners were not even impleaded as parties. In the circumstances, order dated 16.3.1985 as also the appellate order dated 20.10.2000, Annexures- 1 and 6 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Circle Officer, Barauni, Respondent No.3 before whom the parties must appear on 20.10.2008 whereafter the Circle Officer should hear both the petitioners and the private respondent no.4 and hold a local inspection personally and examine the witnesses in presence of the parties and first decide whether the private respondent no.4A and 4B is a privileged person/tenant of the lands in question and thereafter proceed to consider their case on merits in accordance with law. Until final order is passed, parties must maintain status quo as existing on the date of police report i.e. 10.6.2008. 6. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)