IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7405 of 2002 BANARSI PRASAD son of Late Nav Ratan Lal, resident of Thatheri Bazar, near Engineering College, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, PATNA SADAR, PATNA 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, PATNA SADAR, PATNA 5. PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PATNA ----------- 2 20.02.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner & the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th of August, 1998 passed in Commercial Land Rent Case No. 3 of 1998-99 by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Patna Sadar, Patna fixing the commercial land rent in respect of the land and building in question situated in Ward No. 13, Plot No. 324 measuring an area of two kathas in mouja Muslahpur in the town & district of Patna under the amended provisions of sub-section (4) of section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid amended provisions as contained in Section 23(4) of the aforesaid Act was challenged in this court through a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 5529 of 1995 (Amar Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and other analogous cases, - 2 - as reported in 2007 (3) P.L.J.R., 225 in exercise of which Annexure-1 was passed holding the provision as unconstitutional. In the above circumstances the order contained in annexure-1 deserves to be quashed and consequently the Warning Card (Annexure-3) as a consequential action issued pursuant to Annexure-1 also deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the State is not in position to refute the above submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the judgement of this Court, as referred to the above, it is not disputed that the relevant provision on basis of which the impugned order Annexure-1 was passed, has been declared to be unconstitutional by this Court in the aforesaid decision. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.08.1998 as contained in Annexure-1 as also the consequential order i.e. Warning Card (Annexure-3) can not be sustained in law, and as such, are hereby quashed. The writ application is, accordingly, allowed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)