IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1736 of 2004 1. JAI PRAKASH SHARMA 2. ASHOK KUMAR 3. SRI KANT SHARMA, ALL SONS OF LATE RADHE MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMPANIBAG, P.S. KOTWALI, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 3. DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS ( D.C.L.R.) BHAGALPUR 4. CIRCLE OFFICER ( C.O.) NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR 5. CHAMALAL MANDAL @ SHARMA SON OF LATE BRAMDEO PD. MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AZMERIPUR, P.S. NATHNAGAR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR. ----------- For the petitioners: Mr. Bindeshwar Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the State : M/S Binod Kumar, AC to SC V and Anwar Karim, AC to SC V. --------- 3/ 17-09-2009 Heard Mr. Bindeshwar Pd. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to SC V for the State. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent no.5 despite service of notice. The petitioners seek quashing of order dated 23.09.2002 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur (respondent no.2) in Mutation Revision Case No. 19 of 2002-2003 whereby the aforesaid revision was dismissed on account of being time barred and also holding that the matter required to be decided by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute relates to the lands of khata no. 37, plots - 2 - no.12,13 and 17 as well as khata no.142 plot no. 43 of Mauza Habibchak and Ajmeripur, respectively, Zamabandi of which was running in the name of other persons. On the basis of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioners in Title Suit No.215 of 1987 filed for confirmation of amicable family partition dated 20.05.1960, the father of the petitioners ( now deceased), namely, Radhey Mandal filed a case before the Anchal Adhikari, for cancellation of Zamabandi running in the name of other persons and for creation of Zamabandi in their favour. The petition was allowed by order dated 05.07.1996, as contained in Annexure-2. However, the matter was challenged in Mutation Appeal No. 3 of 1999 by Birendra Kumar Mandal and 11 others and the appellate court, after hearing the parties, set aside the order 05.07.1996 on the ground that the appellants were not parties to the aforesaid suit wherein partition within the family was accepted and , thus, Zamabandi running in the name of the appellants should not have been cancelled by the Anchal Adhikari. Matter was challenged in Revision bearing Mutation Revision No. 19 of 2002-03 before the Collector, Bhagalpur who had refused to admit the revision by order dated 23.09.2002 on the ground of its being time barred since the petitioners therein could not be able to explain the delay and also that the matter requires to be - 3 - settled by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. It has also been recorded in the aforesaid order dated 23.09.2002 that the Anchal Adhikari concerned has passed the order without issuing notice to the respondents and, thus, the order was passed behind their back except the Opposite Party No.9, Chamaklal Mandal son of late Brahmdeo Mandal. It has also been observed that the Anchal Adhikari had passed order without issuing notice to the recorded tenant in whose name earlier Zamabandi was running. Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the petition filed by the petitioners before the Collector, Bhagalpur in Mutation Revision No. 19 of 2002- 03. Let that be kept on record. It appears from the aforesaid petition that 12 persons had been impleaded as opposite parties whereas the petitioners have only impleaded one Chamaklal Mandal son of late Brahmdeo Mandal who was opposite party no. 9 before the revisional authority. The petitioners failed to explained as to why other opposite parties, including the persons in whose name Zamabandi was running, have not been impleaded as respondents in this writ application. The petitioners have also failed to show from the judgment and decree of the Title Suit No. 215 of 1987, which has been brought on record as Annexure-1, that the opposite parties before the revisional authority, except Chamaklal - 4 - Mandal ( impleaded as respondent no.5 herein) were the parties to the suit. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the other persons, who were the opposite parties before the revisional authority, are necessary parties herein as the appeal was decided in their favour by the appellate authority holding that the aforesaid persons were not party to the suit and without issuing notice to the Zamabandi holders, the Anchal Adhikari has cancelled the earlier Zamabandi. Thus, it is urged that the writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground for non- joinder of the necessary party and also on merit. From the revision application filed before the Collector, Bhagalpur, as produced by the petitioners at the time of hearing of this case, it appears that 12 persons were impleaded as opposite parties in the aforesaid revision, including Birendra Kumar Mandal. From the appellate order it is manifest that the said Birendra Kumar Mandal and others had preferred appeal which was allowed holding therein that neither they were parties to the title suit concerned nor were notices issued upon them being the Zamabandi holder. The other opposite parties in the Mutation Revision No. 19 of 2002-03 were, thus, necessary parties in this writ application as the appellate order was passed in their favour. The petitioners failed to - 5 - assign any reason for non-impleading them as parties. Thus, the writ application is bound to fail on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party alone. The petitioners also could not show from the judgment and decree concerned that those persons were parties to the suit except the respondent no.5, Chamaklal Mandal. The petitioners also could not establish that notices were issued upon recorded tenant in whose name Zamabandi was earlier running as it is apparent from Annexure-2, the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari, that merely a general notice was issued. In view of the aforesaid discussion this Court is constrained to hold that the petitioners failed to make out any case for interference in the revisional order and it further appears that they had deliberately not impleaded the aforesaid necessary parties in this writ application. As a result, this writ application fails and is accordingly, dismissed. ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J ) BTiwary/