IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.826 of 2009 MD.ZAMIRUDDIN son of Late Sk. Samiruddin, Resident of Village Salehpur, Police Station Falka, District Katihar. …………..Petitioner No.2………..Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar. 3. Jargish @ Fakhruddin 4. Owais 5. Reyazuddin All sons of late Alimuddin All resident of Village Salehpur, P.S. Falka, District Katihar. 6. Najibuddin son of Late Ruknuddin Ahmad 7. Shahabuddin Ahmad 8. Bahuddin Ahmad 9. Babuddin Ahmad 10. Aslehuddin Ahmad 11. Faleddin Ahmad @ Faheddin Ahmad. All sons of Late Ziauddin 12. Mostt. Raufa Khatoon wife of Late Ruknuddin 13. Mostt. Mustari wife of Late Ziauddin. All resident of Village Salehpur, P.S. Falka, District Katihar. 14. Anchaladhikari, Falka, Katihar. ………………….. Respondents/Respondents. with LPA No.827 of 2009 MD.ZAMIRUDDIN son of Late Sk. Samiruddin, Resident of Village Salehpur, Police Station Falka, District Katihar. …………..Petitioner No.2………..Appellant. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms, Katihar. …………..Respondent no.1 & 2…. Respondents Ist Set. 3. Shakila Khatoon @ Shakia Khatoon wife of Late Mohiuddin 4. Imtiyaz 5. Intekhab 6. Intesar. All monor sons of Late Mohiuddin through their mother and guardian Shakila Khatoon @ Shakia Khatoon All resident of village Salehpur Maheshpur P.S Falka, District Katihar. …………………….Respondent nos. 3 to 6…Respondent 2nd set. 7. Md. Najibuddin Son of Late Ruknuddin 8. Md. Sabauddin Ahmad 9. Bahauddin Ahmad 10. Babuddin Ahmad @ Pappu 11. Md. Aslehuddin Ahmad 12. Faluddin Ahmad @ Faheddin Ahmad @ Md. Faluddin. All sons of Late Ziauddin. 13. Mostt. Raufa Khatoon wife of Late Ruknuddin 14. Mostt. Mustari wife of Late Ziauddin. All resident of village Salehpur Maheshpur, P.S. Falka, District Katihar. ….. 2 …………… Respondent nos. 7 to 14.. Respondent 3rd Set. 15. 15. Anchaladhikari, Falka, Katihar. … ………..Respondent No.15….Respondent 4th set. ----------- For the Appellant in both appeals:- Mr. Najeeb Ahmad, Advocate. For the Private Respondents:- Mrs. Sabita Kumari, & Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha. Adv. For the State:- Mr. K.P. Gupta, S.C. 16 & Mr. Binod Kumar, A.C. to S.C.16. ………… 6 10.02.2011 These two L.P.As. arise out of the common order dated 5.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which two writ applications bearing C.W.J.C. No. 4674 of 2002 and C.W.J.C. No.5763 of 2002 were dismissed holding that the questions which were raised in the two writ petitions depended upon appreciation of the disputed questions of fact which may not be gone into in a proceedings like the writ petitions. After having heard learned counsel for the appellants in both the L.P.As. and also after having heard learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 3 to 6, it would appear that the proceedings under section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, disposed of by the Collector, Katihar by two orders, were questioned in the above two writ petitions which were passed without impleading the transferee of the land, which were subject matter of the proceedings before the Collector, Katihar in two cases under section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. There is no dispute in the fact that transfers had been made long back, some times in 1962, by persons who were made party to the above noted proceedings under section 48 E of the B.T. Act which were disposed of by the Collector, Katihar by two different orders which gave rise to the above noted two writ 3 petitions. But, those orders appear to have been passed completely overlooking the explanation appended to in section 48 E (1) of the B.T. Act. The above noted explanation requires that ‘if in the midst of the proceeding it is found that the landlord has during or before the initiation of the proceeding transferred the land to any other person who is not a party to the proceeding initiated under sub-section (1), the Collector shall make such transferee a party to the proceeding.’ There was no dispute in the fact that the present appellants had not appeared in the proceedings under section 48 E of the B.T. Act and behind whose back orders under section 48 E of the B.T. Act were passed, are transferee of some of the disputed land on account of having allegedly purchased those lands from the persons who were made party and who were the tenants as per meaning of the term and in the light of the provisions of section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In the light of the above explanation it was necessary that the proceedings under section 48 E of the Act ought to have been carried out after having impleaded the persons as parties to the above proceedings. It appears from the above facts that impleadment of the appellants was necessary under law so as to dispose of the proceedings under section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. This shows that the position of law was not considered by the writ Court and therefore we find merit in the above two appeals. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The writ petitions are allowed. Under the facts situation and the legal 4 position we have just noticed, it is necessary to direct the Collector, Katihar to restore the proceedings bearing cases No. 90/99 of 2000 and 92/99 of 2000 to their original numbers and thereafter give the appellants an opportunity of being heard after being impleaded as necessary parties in the light of the provisions of section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The above two appeals are accordingly disposed of with the above directions. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)