IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9301 of 2007 Ram Chandra Prasad, son of Budhu Sao, resident of village- Narayanpur, P.S. Piro, District- Ara (Bhojpur), at present village- Baradhi Gola, P.S. Akorhigola, District- Rohtas. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram) 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rohtas (Sasaram). 4.The Circle Officer, Akorhigola, District- Rohtas. .. Respondents. ---------- 02- 11.2.2009 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Heard learned assistant counsel to Mr. Neeraj Nandan, Government Pleader No.18. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 1.9.2006 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Rohtas, in Commercial Rent Fixation Case No.22 of 2006 (Ram Chandra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and others), whereby the petitioner’s revision application has been rejected. It arises out of proceedings under section 23(4) of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned Government Counsel. It relates to fixation of commercial rent in terms of section- 2 23(4) of the Act with respect to plot no.359, appertaining to Khata no.70, Thana no.134, covering an area of 0.14 decimals, situate at village- Bararhi. By order dated 30.5.2005 (Annexure-4), the learned Anchal Adhikari, Akorhi Gola, fixed the commercial rent for the land in question. The petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed for default by the impugned order. 3. It appears to me that section 23(4) of the Act has been declared ultra-vires in Amar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2007(3) P.L.J.R. 225. In that view of the matter, the order dated 1.9.2006 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Rohtas (Sasaram), as well as the order dated 30.5.2005 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Akorhi Gola, are hereby set aside. The extent of relief available to the petitioner will be in terms of the said judgment. 4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3