IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1057 of 2002 MD.UMAR ALI ANSARI S/O- LATE ABDUL MAJID ANSARI, R/O- NAYA TOLA, SIKATIA, P.S.-SONABANI GODAM, DISTRICT - ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAND REFORMS, ARARIA 3. NAZIR AHMAD, S/O- LATE ABDUL GHANNI ANSARI 4. NASIR AHMAD, S/O- LATE ABDUL GHANI ANSARI 5. BIBI JAIBUN NISHAN, D/O- LATE ABDUL GHANNI ANSARI ALL LEGAL HEIRS OF ABDUL GHANNI ANSARI, R/O- VILLAGE BHAGAIY, P.S.- MIRZA CHOWKI, DISTRICT – GODDA 6. SANNAULLAH ANSARI, S/O- LATE TAZUDDIN ANSARI, R/O- VILLAGE SIKTIYA, NAYA TOLA, P.S.- KURSAKANTA, DISTRICT- ARARIA. 7. SMT. URMILA DEVI, W/O- NAKCHEDI BHAGAT, R/O- VILLAGE MIRJAPUR, P.S. – RANIGANJ, DISTRICT- ARARIA 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KURSAKANTI, DISTRICT – ARARIA ----------- 7. 09.02.2009 I.A. No. 6989 of 2008 Interlocutory application no. 6989 of 2008 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for substituting the names of the heirs and the legal representatives of sole petitioner Md. Umar Ali Ansari, who died on 14.06.2008. The copy of the said interlocutory application has been served on the counsel appearing on the behalf of the respondents. There being no objection, the interlocutory application is allowed. Let the names of the deceased sole petitioner Md. Umar Ali Ansari be expunged from the record and in his place the names of his legal representatives as mentioned in - 2 - paragraph 1 of the said interlocutory application be substituted. Mr. B.K. Sinha, Learned Advocate, through whom the interlocutory application has been filed, has filed power on behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased sole petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the Circle Officer, Kursakanta, Araria as respondent No. 8. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th of October, 2001 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent-Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in Appeal No. 86 of 2000, whereby he set aside the order dated 06.07.1999 in case no. 62 of 1999 passed by his Predecessor in office in a proceeding under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act as contained in Annexure-8 as well as the order dated 25th of May, 2000 passed by the respondent-Circle Officer in case no. 4 of 2000 in a proceeding under Section 48D of the aforesaid Act. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.-2 while considering the appeal against the order dated 25.05.2000 arising out of the proceeding under section 48D of the Act as contained in Annexure-3 also set aside the order dated 6th July, 1999 (Annexure-8)passed by his Predecessor in office in a proceeding under section 48E of the - 3 - Act as contained in Annexure-8 declaring the BATAIDARI right of the petitioner. He further submits that the order passed in a proceeding under section 48E is appellable under section 48F before the Collector of the district or an officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf and as such, the respondent no.-2 could not have set aside the order dated 6th July 1999 passed by his Predecessor in office in a proceeding under section 48E inasmuch as the said order was not under appeal. It is further submitted that the order passed by the respondent no. 2 in a proceeding under section 48E as well as the order passed by 48D as contained in Annexure-3 could not have been set aside by the impunged order dated 20th of October, 2001 (Annexure-1). It is further submitted that both the orders were passed after hearing the respondent no.-7, who was the land holder as such, there is no infirmity in the order as contained in Annexures-3 and 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.- 3 to 6 on the other hand, submits that although there was no appeal before the respondent no. -2 against the order dated 6th July, 1999, as contained in Annexure-8, the respondent no.-2 was fully justified in law for having found that the aforesaid order dated 6th July, 1999 (Annexure-8) in a proceeding under Section 48E was passed on the basis of compromise between the applicant and the respondent no. -7, Urmila Devi who had - 4 - no subsisting title and as such, she was not land holder as such, for the same reason the order dated 25th of May,2000 passed by the respondent-Circle Officer in a proceeding under Section 48E was also set aside as the said order was passed taking into the compromise between the applicant and the respondent no. 7, Urmila Devi who had no subsisting interest over the land in question considering the decree in the Title suit no. 21 of 1982 as contained in Annexure-A, A/1, to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.-6. Notwithstanding the rival submissions of the parties, both parties are in agreement on the point that the matter be decided afresh first under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act by the respondent no. -2 in accordance with law after hearing both the sides and upon considering the respective materials produced by them in support of their claim. In view of the above, the order dated 20th of October 2001 passed in case No. 86 of 2000 (Annexure-1) and the order dated 25.05.2000 passed in Case no. 4 of 2000 (Annexure-3) and also the order dated 6th of July 1999 (Annexure-8) passed in case No. 62 of 1999-2000 are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.-2, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Araria for passing order afresh on the application filed by the petitioner under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act after hearing the parties concerned including the respondent Nos-3 to 7 and also the - 5 - relevant materials produced by them in support of their respective claims in accordance with law. The application is accordingly, disposed of with the above observations/directions. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)