IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6258 of 1990 BISHUNDEO YADAV, son of Kusum Lal Yadav, resident of village Siswa, Post office Bithnouli, P.S. K.Nagar, District Purnea Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Kabindra Narain Choudhary 3. Kouselendra Narain Choudhary 4. Nripendra Narain Choudhary 5. Lokendra Narain Choudhary All sons of Narendra Narain Choudhary, resident of village and Post office Parora, P.S. K.Nagar, District Purnea … Respondent 1st party 6. Srimati Radha Devi, wife of Bhagwat Narain Kumar, resident of village Jairampur, Post office Bihpur, P.S. Bihpur, District Bhagalpur 7. The Special Land Reforms Dy. Collector, Sadar, Purnea 8. The Additional Collector, Purnea ... Respondent 2nd party. ----------- 8. 8.10.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State as well as private respondents. The impugned orders, contained in Annexures 6 and 7, cannot be sustained only on the ground that the Collector under the Bihar Tenancy Act hereinafter referred to as the Act has got no power of review. Once the petitioner was declared Bataidar by an order dated 5.9.1988, the order being appealable the private respondents had to file an appeal. That having been not done, the review at their instance leading to the impugned order dated 14.12.1990 (Annexure-6) was itself without jurisdiction. The order 2 dated 31.8.1990 (Annexure-7) passed by the appellate authority against such order dated 14.2.1990 apparently also has no legs to stand. Thus both the impugned order, Annexure-6 and Annexure-7 being wholly without jurisdiction must be and is hereby quashed. Having quashed both the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures 6 and 7, this Court however in order to meet the ends of justice must give liberty to the private respondents to take recourse to an appeal u/s 49M of the Act against the original order dated 5.9.1988 in favour of the petitioner and in the event such an appeal is filed within a period of two months from today, the same will be disposed of on merits without insisting on the question of delay as the matter had remained subjudice either before the authorities under the Act or before this Court right from the year 1989 to this day. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is allowed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 3