IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11939 of 2007 1. Balmiki Singh 2. Bal Krishna Prasad Singh 3. Bal Binod Prasad Singh 4. Ramashray Prasad Singh 5. Ram Jeevan Prasad Singh, all sons of late Ram Kishore Singh, all resident of Village- Nayagaon, Police Station- :Parbatta, District- Khagaria ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Deputy Collector, I/C, Land Reforms, Gogri, Police Station- District- Khagaria. 4. The Anchal Adhikari (A.A) Gogri, Police Station.. District Khagaria 5. Ram Chandra Prasad Singh, son of late Arogya Singh, resident of Village- Nayagaon, Post Office- Nayagaon, Police Station- Parbatta, District- Khagaria --------- Respondents. --------- 2. 19.2.2009 Heard Shashi Bhushan Prasad Sinha for the petitioners, and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Government pleader No.11 for respondent nos. 1 to 4. We do not feel the necessity of issuing notice to respondent no.5 in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. It is with respect to 3 Kahtas of land, appertaining to Survey Plot. No. 1107 of Jamabandi No.6. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Collector of the district Khagaria in Jamabandi Correction Case No. 2 of 1999- 2000 ( Ram Chandra Singh Vrs. Balmiki Singh & Ors.), whereby he has set aside the order of the learned appellate authority and has directed the Jamabandi to continue in favour of respondent no.5 herein. Learned Anchal Adhikari by his order directed that Jamabandi no.6 may continue in the name of Rukmani Devi. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.5 herein preferred appeal which was rejected by order dated 25.1.1999 (Annexure-1), passed by 2 the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gogari, in Jamabandi Correction Case No. 8 of 1998 (Ram Cahandra Prasad Singh Vrs. Ram Kishore Singh), and the order of the learned Anchal Adhikari was upheld. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.5 herein moved the learned Collector of the district of Khagaria who allowed the same by his order dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure-2), passed in Jamabandi Correction Cased no.2 of 1999-2000( Ram Chandra Singh Vrs. Balmiki Singh & Ors.), and set aside the order of the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector. He directed that Jamabandi as per the Hukumnama which has persisted for 50(fifty) years may continue in the name of respondent no.5 herein. Aggrieved by this order, the heirs of Ram Kishore Singh has preferred the present writ application with a prayer to set aside the impugned order. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector is entirely in his favour, and the same has been set aside by the learned Collector in a casual manner. He next submits that Ram Chandra Singh did not have the Locus Standi to maintain his case before the learned Collector. He lastly submits that the learned Collector has allowed the case of Ram Chandra Singh inspite of continuous absence on a large number of dates and indeed absence on the date of the disposal of the matter. He relies on the judgment in the case of Mosafir Mahton Vrs. Mt. Bachani, reported in A.I.R 1963 Pat. 1. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I would like to deal 3 with question of non-appearance of Ram Chandra Singh, the applicant, before the learned Collector. The contention is stated only to be rejected. The learned Collector has examined the matter thoroughly and has, on a consideration of the materials on record, allowed the petition preferred by Ram Chandra Singh which shows sense of justice. A lis can always be disposed of in favour of a party in his absence. The learned Collector has found that the applicant before the learned Anchal adhikari had moved him after a lapse of 50(fifty) years. He has further observed that let the Jamabandi continue in the name of Ram Chandra Singh because of his superior claim mentioned in the impugned order. He has also observed that the question of right, title and interest can be adjudicated in a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The impugned order, therefore, can not be faulted. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )