IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1406 of 2000 SMT.LAJWANTI DEVI & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. N. K. Agrwal, Senior Adv. Mr. B.K. Bariar, Adv. For the State :- Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv. S.C. to A.G.G. III -------------- 12. 31.7.2008 Heard Mr. N. K. Agrwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned J.C. to Additional Advocate General No. 3 for the State. No one appears for the substituted respondent nos. 4(ii) and 4(iii) although notices of the interlocutory application for substitution had earlier been issued to them. The only ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order had been passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Survey, Gaya in Appeal Case No. 983 of 1992 filed by the petitioners under the Bihar and Orrisa Municipal Survey Act without hearing the appellants and in the absence of their counsel, after rejecting the time petition filed on their behalf. It is submitted that although the petitioners admittedly had purchased the property in dispute from the father of the original respondent no. 4 and other executors of the registered sale deed and their names were also mutated and they were paying rent to the State Government regularly, yet after 25 years of the purchase the issue had been raised by said respondent no. 4 who was the son of one of the executors of the sale deed. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioners had a strong case and if all the documents in possession of the petitioners had been taken into account a different order would have been passed. - 2 - Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer by pointing out that the matter was being delayed at the instance of the appellants and for the said reason ultimately respondent no. 2 had rejected the time petition and heard the matter finally. From perusal of the ordersheet filed on behalf of the State- respondents, this Court does not find that prayer for time had been made repeatedly although on the previous date the warning had been issued by the appellate authority that no further time would be granted. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the ends of justice, the impugned order dated 6.11.1999 passed by respondent no. 2, Superintendent of Survey, in Appeal Case No. 983 of 1992 is set aside and the matter is remanded to him for a fresh consideration after hearing the parties. It is made clear that the petitioners will appear before the Court along with a copy of this order within four weeks from today and no further notice will be required to be sent to them. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed subject to the aforesaid direction. P. Kumar (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)