CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 4533 OF 1991 ***** ( In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ) ****** 1. BIMLENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE UPENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY 2. AMLENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE UPENDRA NARAIN CHOUDHARY BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARORA, POLICE STATION K. NAGAR, DISTRICT PURNEA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT RAJESHWARI NIWAS, OPPOSITE RANG BHUMI MAIDAN, TOWN POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT PURNEA ………………………..…………………………………………….……...PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. DHANESHWAR MAHALDAR, SON OF LATE JITAN MAHALDAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KANT NAGAR, POLICE STATION BARARI, DISTRICT KATIHARI. AT PRESENT, LIVING IN VILLAGE PARORA, POLICE STATION K. NAGAR, DISTRICT PURNEA 2. THE SPECIAL LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, PURNEA 3. THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KRITYANAND NAGAR, DISTRICT PURNEA 5. ARJUN MURMU, UP-MUKHIYA, GANESHPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, POLICE STATION K. NAGAR, DISTRICT PURNEA …………………………………………………..…………………….RESPONDENTS ******************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. This matter arises out of an application filed on behalf of the private respondents under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The Special Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Purnea by order dated 24.04.1990 (Annexure-3) and the Collector, Purnea by order dated - 2 - 19.11.1990 (Annexure-4) have allowed the application of the respondent. This case is being disposed of on the short point raised on behalf of the petitioners that the entire proceedings were without notice to the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has stated at paragraph 5 (viii) & 5 (ix) of the counter affidavit, that the notices were served on the petitioners on 07.03.1988 through the Peon and on 11.01.1989 by registered post. It has been recorded in the order sheet and submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that the Peon had reported that the petitioners were out of the town and as such house service was affected. In order to demonstrate that in fact no notice was served, Counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-1 would demonstrate that the Peon had served the notice on 11.01.1990, which would be apparent from his report. It is submitted that if the Peon had served the notice on 11.01.1990, the question of issuing service through registered post on 11.01.1989 is obviously an error of record contained in the impugned orders. It is not the case of the respondents, that the notice were sent simultaneously by ordinary process and registered post, and therefore, the error appears to be apparent on the face of the record. Having come to a finding, that the service of - 3 - notice on the petitioners was not validly affected, this Court has no option but to remand the matter back to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms for reconsideration of the matter in accordance with the provisions of Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The parties would be at liberty to bring this order to the notice of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, who will issue notices to the parties, and then proceed in accordance with law. In the result, the impugned orders dated 24.04.1990 (Annexure-3) and 19.11.1990 (Annexure-4) are hereby quashed. This application is accordingly allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 N.A.F.R./ANAND