IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13387 of 2003 SMT.SAMUNDRI DEVI, WIFE OF RAMPRIT RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAJARI BUJURG, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI 3. ANCHAL ADHIKARI (CIRCLE OFFICER), JANDAHA, VAISHALI 4. SMT. SIRIJA DEVI, WIFE OF NANDLAL RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAJARI BUJURG, P.S. JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. --- RESPONDENTS ----------- 6 23.7.2010 I.A. No. 5994 of 2010 The sole petitioner died on 24.4.2008 leaving behind her husband and two sons which have been described at paragraph 2 of the interlocutory application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed this substitution petition along with the Vakalatnama on behalf of the heirs. The office is directed to expunge the name of the petitioner and substitute the name of the heirs as described at paragraph 2 of I.A. application. This interlocutory application is accordingly allowed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody appears despite notice on behalf of respondent no. 4. Smt. Sirija Devi (respondent no. 4) was issued a purcha in the year 1996 with respect to the lands appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 4, R.S. Plot No. 1494 which previously belonged to Asharfi Sah and Laxmi Narain Sah. Petitioner claims that she had purchased the land from Asharfi Sah on 19.10.1995. The Circle Officer, Jandaha, Vaishali allowed the application of respondent no. 4 which was confirmed by the revisional authority. The petitioner came to this 2 Court vide CWJC No. 10594 of 1997 which was disposed of on 8.9.1998. In the writ application a plea was taken that no notice was given to the petitioner in terms of rule 5 of the Bihar Privilege Persons Rules and his revision application was rejected without giving an opportunity of being heard. This Court quashed the orders of the Circle Officer, Jandaha, Vaishali and the revisional Court and remanded the matter back to the Circle Officer. By order dated 5.6.2002, the Circle Officer, Jandaha, Vaishali after an enquiry as contained in annexure-B held that the respondent was in possession of 3.54 decimals of land and ordered the petitioner to vacate the land which had been allotted in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order of the Circle Officer, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Collector, Vaishali. The Collector ordered for an enquiry which was held by the Additional Collector. The enquiry report is contained in annexure-3 which indicates that the respondent has constructed a hut on her joint family raiyati land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned are bad in view of the fact that before issuance of a purcha there ought to be a finding by the Court that the person concerned is a privilege as define in sub-section (I)(B) of Section 2. It has rightly been submitted that there should be a finding that the respondent is a privilege person. The second submission on behalf of the petitioner is that he too is a privileged person and as such lands have been wrongly settled in favour of respondent no. 4. 3 This Court finds that this question was never addressed or raised by either parties either before the Circle Officer or before the Collector. Nevertheless, in view of the conflicting reports regarding the actual status of the land, it is difficult for this Court to decide the issue. Besides which the Circle Officer, Jandaha, Vaishali ought to have recorded the finding that the respondent is a privilege person and was thus entitled for the issuance of a Basigit Purcha. In the result, I quash the orders contained in annexures 2 and 4 dated 20.6.2002 and 5.7.2003 and remand the matter back to the Circle Officer, Jandaha, Vaishali to decide both the issues after issuance of notices to the parties both for the purpose of hearing the case and for the purpose of carrying out spot inspection. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)