IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8224 of 2011 SMT. SUMITRA DEVI W/O VIJAY KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF KOTHIYA, P.O. SADAKAT ASHRAM, P.S. DIGHA, PATNA ..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, PATNA, BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, REVENUE, PATNA 3. THE DCLR, DANAPUR,PATNA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DANAPUR, PATNA 5. HALKA KARAMCHARI, DANAPUR CIRCLE, DANAPUR 6. SUBHASH PRASAD SINGH 7. RAJNATH PRASAD SINGH 8. ISHWARANAND SINGH 9. SATISH PRASAD SINGH,6 TO 9 ALL SONS OF LATE DEO PRASAD SINGH @ LALBABU SINGH, RESIDENT OF BICHALI GALI GOLA ROAD, DANAPUR, P.S. DANAPUR, PATNA. …RESPODNENTS For the petitioner :Mr. Pranav Kumar & :Mr. Pawan Kumar Sinha For the State :Mr. R.B.Mahto, Sr.Adv.A.G. & :Mr. Krishna Chandra, A.C. to A.G. ----------- 03. 19.05.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to A.G. for the State. Petitioner is purchaser of a small tract of land from one Dharmshila Devi in whose name Jamabandi respecting the land stood recorded. Based on said sale, she applied and got her name mutated in respect of the land purchased by her. Subsequently, the co-sharer of the husband of Dharmshila Devi filed an appeal against the order mutating the name of the vendor of the petitioner. The said appeal was allowed. It is to be noted here that Dharmshila Devi, in the meanwhile, had alienated part(s) of the land in favour of different purchasers. 2 The appeal preferred by the co-sharer of Dharmshila Devi was allowed without impleading the purchaser(s) as party to the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, some of such purchasers filed CWJC No. 3947 of 2010 in this Court wherein, by a proceeding dated 8.3.2010 (Annexure-5), they were permitted to file petition before the Respondent-DCLR seeking recall of the order dated 29.7.2008 or to pass any order in accordance with law. It is the stand of the petitioner that pursuant to the said order, those purchasers filed petition before the Respondent-DCLR vide Misc. Case No.1/2010-11 which was allowed by order dated 28.01.2011(Annexure-7). The petitioner filed application before the respondent-DCLR which was not entertained by the impugned order dated 12.1.2011 on the ground that the applicant (writ petitioner) was not a party to CWJC No. 3947 of 2010 (Annexure-5). It is submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of petitioner(s) of CWJC No. 3947 of 2010. Learned A.C. to A.G. having regard to the materials on record, does not object to the submissions of the petitioner that she too be treated alike in the facts and circumstances of the case. Having heard the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, the application is allowed. Petitioner is given liberty to file appropriate application before the Respondent-DCLR, Danapur in the light of the observations 3 made by this Court in CWJC No. 3947 of 2010 (Annexure-5) which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )