IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.6384 OF 2009 MADAN RAM, SON OF LATE RAMBRIIKSH RAM @ RAMBRIKSH CHAMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARORIA GULAB TOLA, POLICE STATION NAUTAN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ……………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, NAUTAN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN 4. GAYA RAM, SON OF LATE ATIBAL RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHUMNAGAR BARORIA GULAB TOLA, POLICE STATION NAUTAN, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN ………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******** 4 21/06/2010 Notices were issued to respondent no. 4 and Counsel appeared by filing vakalatnama. But no on appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4 to defend the impugned order. The petitioner has challenged the order dated29.08.2006 passed by the Circle Officer, Nautan declaring that 1½ decimals of land of khata no. 97, plot no. 1835 should be recorded in the name of respondent no. 4 Gaya Ram. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 19.12.2005 would indicate that respondent no. 4 had filed an application that he should be declared to be privileged person under the Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) and be granted settlement of four dhurs of land. Notices were issued on 19.12.2005 to the petitioner who is the land holder of 2 the said plot. On the next date, i.e. 30.12.2005 the service report of the notice was received and the petitioner filed his objection. After considering the objection, the matter appeared to be dropped. On 29.08.2006, the Circle Officer, Nautan suo motu reopened the case and directed for local inspection. On 29.08.2006, local inspection was made on the same date and thereafter the Circle Officer, Nautan comes to the conclusion that respondent no. 4 being in possession of 1½ decimals of land is entitled to be granted a purcha under the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the local inspection report which indicates that respondent no. 4 had purchased 1½ kathas of land of khata no. 97, khesra no. 1845 by a sale deed 13658 dated 29.09.2001. It has also been stated that the daughter-in-law of respondent no. 4 had been allotted a house under the Indira Awas. The local inspection also indicates that the petitioner was ready to donate three decimals of land to respondent no. 4 near the land which he has purchased, and therefore, it has been suggested that both parties should be called and the matter may be amicably settled between them. After the proceedings were dropped, apparently respondent no. 4 filed an application before 3 the JANATA DARBAR of the District Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah and on the orders of the District Magistrate, the matter was reopened. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice was ever issued to him with respect to the reopening of the case and he was never been given an opportunity to be heard. The order impugned dated 27.04.2009 passed by the Collector challenging the order of the Circle Officer indicates that the respondent no. 4 has no other land except the land he is claiming. It has also been recorded that the petitioner is ready to give any piece of land in stead of the land that is being claimed by the respondent no. 4. It is apparent on perusal of the order sheet that there is no finding of the Circle Officer or the Collector that respondent no. 4 is a Privileged Person under the Act. There appears to be a mistake of fact in recording that the respondent no. 4 has no other land except that which is claimed for the purpose of constructing/building his house/hut. I find that the orders impugned i.e. the order of the Circle Officer, Nautan as well as the Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah suffer on account of the fact that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard which is clear from the order annexed at 4 Annexure-1. In view of the aforesaid facts, I quash the orders dated 29.08.2006 and 27.04.2009 passed in Case No. 3 of 2005 and Case No. 102 of 2006-07 respectively and I further direct that the matter should be remanded back to the Circle Officer, Nautan who should issue notice to the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 and after making a local inspection in presence of both the parties, pass appropriate orders in this case and if possible to amicably settle the dispute. This application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)