IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6358 of 2002 SHRI KANTHESHWAR MAHADEO JEE having the temple at CL 60/67, Mohalla- Karanghanta, Varanasi, District- Varanasi, U.P. through its Sebait Rani Chandeshwari Devi (deceased and substituted in his place Sri Bireshwari Pd. Narain Singh as Sebait vide order no. 7 dated 15.01.2004) wife of Late Raja Brajeshwari Prasad Narayan Singh, resident of Salemgarh P.S.- Salemgarh, District- Deoria, U.P., presently residing at B 21/82 Kamaichha, Varanasi, District- Varanasi. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, Siwan, District- Siwan 3. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Siwan, District- Siwan 4. Circle Officer, Siswan, District Siwan 5. Dharamjit Yadav son of Ramchander Yadav, resident of village- Chainpur Mobarkpur, P.O.- Chainpur, P.S.- Siswan, District- Siwan ----------- 8 03.02.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.5. Petitioner challenges the order dated 06.11.2001 (Annexure-2), passed in Bataidari Appeal No. 282 of 1991-92 by the Collector, Siwan. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Bataidari claim of the respondent no.5 was allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Siwan, respondent no.3 without even noticing the land holder. Notice was issued to Uma Shankar Pandey, who was not the land holder. The petitioner was not even noticed and the respondent no.3 allowed the Bataidari claim by its order dated 25.07.1981 (Annexure-1). It is submitted that the petitioner before the Collector in his appeal had - 2 - specifically agitated the matter that the appellants were the real land holder since the appellants were Sebait of Kantheshwar Mahadeo, who is the real land holder, however, the appellants were not noticed and the Bataidari claim was allowed. It is further submitted that the appellants had relied upon documents in support of the fact that Uma Shankar Pandey is not the Sebait or the Pujari of Kameshwar Mahadeo Mandir who is the land holder. The collector dismissed the appeal and up- held the order of the L.R.D.C. by cryptic order without even discussing or considering the documents relied upon by merely expressing observation that since the appellants reside in Banaras, it is not believable that the land in question could be cultivated which falls in the district of Siwan. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the L.R.D.C. passed the order after issuing notice to Umashankar Pandey who was the land holder. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that the moot question is as to who is the land holder. Petitioner claims that the appellant is the land holder whereas the respondents claim that Uma Shankar Pandey was the Pujari of the Kameshwar Mahadeo Mandir at Chainpur in the district of Siwan and he had given the land to - 3 - respondent Dharamjit Yadav. The respondent Collector being the final Court of facts ought to have considered this aspect of the matter as raised by the appellant in his appeal. From the order impugned it does not appear that the points raised by the appellants in the appeal have been considered, and therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice that the respondent-Collector, Siwan should pass a fresh order considering the respective claims of the parties. In the above circumstances, the order dated 06.11.2001 passed by the Collector, Siwan, respondent no.2 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 for passing the order afresh in accordance with law. The respondent no.2 shall pass the order expeditiously preferably within a period of six months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order after hearing both the parties. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)