IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15051 of 2006 MANORMA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 6.8.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the land holder. She is aggrieved by the order dated 16.1.2004 passed in Case No. 29 of 2003-04 whereunder at the request of private Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, Parcha was granted in terms of the provisions contained in Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act by the Circle Officer, Narkatiaganj, West Champaran. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that notice of proceedings of case No. 29 of 2003-04 was served on Arbind Kumar Dvivedi who is the son of Ratnakar Dvivedi on 2.1.2004 and as the said Arvind Kumar Dvivedi is on inimical terms with the petitioner, she could not know about the proceedings and without considering her objections that the private Respondents are not her tenants, the settlement was made in their favour. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as the notice was not served, she had no opportunity to contest the proceeding and orders settling the lands in question in favour of private Respondents was passed. Later when she learnt about the order she approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8592 of 2005 which was disposed of under orders dated 4.7.2006 giving liberty to the petitioner to file revision against the order dated 16.1.2004 settling the lands in question in favour of private Respondents. - 2 - 4. Availing liberty granted by this Court under orders dated 4.7.2006, Annexure-6 petitioner herein filed Revenue Revision No. 99 of 2006-07 before the Collector, West Champaran on 7.9.2006 but the learned Collector under order dated 25.9.2006, Annexure-1 dismissed the revision on the ground of limitation without considering the facts and the grounds raised in the limitation petition filed along with the revision application wherein petitioner had fully explained the reasons for the delay caused in filing the writ application as also the revision application. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State as also having perused the order of the learned Collector passed on the revision petition itself, I am satisfied that the learned Collector has failed to apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case, accordingly his order dated 25.9.2006 is set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the Collector, West Champaran on 1st of September, 2008 and thereafter the Collector, West Champaran should issue notice to private Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and after hearing them condone the delay in filing the revision application and proceed to hear the revision on merits considering the different points raised in support of the revision application. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)