Letters Patent Appeal No. 689 Of 2006 ---------- Against the judgment and order dated 3.5.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Singh Judge in CWJC No. 2197 of 1996. --------- 1. Sri Gurunanak Deoji Gurudwara Uchla in the district of Katihar through Sebait petitioners/appellants No. 3 to 8 2. Shri Guru Govind Singhjee, Gurudwara Uchla in the district of Katihar, through Sebait petitioners No. 3 to 8 3. Gurudayal Singh son of Late Mauleshwar Prasad Singh 4. Ishwar Kaur wife of Late Samser Singh 5. Pratipal Singh son of Late Guru Prasad Singh 6. Yaspal Singh son of Late Surendra Prasad Singh 7. Kamal Singh son of Late Guru Prasad Singh 8. Haribansh Singh son of Late Koleshwar Prasad Singh All residents of Uchla Estate, P.S. Barari, District Katihar ….Writ Petitioners/ Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Secretary, Department of Revenue, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Katihar, District Katihar 4. Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Katihar, District Katihar 5. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Katihar, District Katihar ………..Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents : - Ms Kumari Amrita, SC I (Ceiling) --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ----- Navin Sinha & Jyoti Saran,JJ. The appellants were allowed two units in Revenue Case No. 192 of 1976-77 in an order passed by the Collector, Katihar dated 10.5.1985. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants makes a short submission that before this order came to be reconsidered by the Additional Collector reducing it to one unit in terms of what the State contends as a retrospective amendment of Section 29(2)(a)(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)Act, 1961 after ten years on 30.12.1995. No notice was issued to the appellants before depriving them of the benefits accrued under the earlier order of the Collector. Assailing the judgment under appeal learned Counsel for the 2 appellants submits from Para 5 of the same that the finding that the appellants did not take care to appear before the Additional Collector cannot be sustained for the reason notice had first to be issued and they were to be made aware of pendency of the proceedings by reopening. If notice was not issued to them the question of their not taking care to appear did not arise. 3. We have gone through the pleadings in the writ application. Para 13 of the same is specific that no notice was given to the appellants and that they were denied opportunity to be heard before the order dated 30.12.1995, ten years after the original order dated 10.8.1985, was passed. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. We have gone through the same also. There is no denial of the fact that no fresh notices were issued to the appellants at the time of reopening of the proceedings. In fact, the respondents have not dealt with this aspect in their counter affidavit at all. In that view of the matter, the recording in the order dated 30.12.1995 that the appellants were not present is of no avail to the respondents. The order being in violation of the principles of natural justice depriving the appellants of the benefits of the earlier order dated 10.8.1985 is therefore not sustainable. In that view of the matter, we find it difficult of sustain the judgment under appeal. 5. We therefore direct that the order dated 30.12.1995 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the court of Additional Collector, Katihar, to issue notice to the appellants and then pass a fresh reasoned order after due opportunity and consideration of cause that may be shown by them. We wish to make it clear that we are not concerned with the issue whether their explanation may be acceptable in law or not. That is a matter to be considered by the authorities. The only question for consideration by us is propriety of the procedure adopted by the respondents in having proceeded exparte before depriving the appellants of the benefits obtained by them in an earlier adjudication. 3 6. The Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 506 (The State of Mysore Vs K. Mancha Gowda) has held in the relevant extract at Paragraph 7 as follows:- “7..........The point is not whether his explanation would be acceptable, but whether he has been given an opportunity to give his explanation. We cannot accept the doctrine of "presumptive knowledge'' or that of "purposeless enquiry'', as their acceptance will be subversive of the principle of "reasonable opportunity''. ............... 7. The impugned order dated 30.12.1995 is accordingly set aside. The appeal stands allowed. The matter is remanded to the Additional Collector who shall proceed to issue notice to the appellants and after considering the cause shown by them and an opportunity of hearing pass fresh orders in accordance with law. (Navin Sinha, J.) (Jyoti Saran,J.) Patna High Court The 12th July 2010 Snkumar/- (NAFR)