IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11766 of 2006 PREM LAL MANDAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 22.09.2008. Counsel for the State has filed counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent No.2, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. None appears for Private Respondent No.7 although notice of these proceedings was served on him. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2004 passed by Collector, Katihar in Misc. Revenue Revision Case No. 234 of 2001-02, Annexure-1, whereunder Jamabandi created in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the Basgit Purcha dated 03.11.1994 with regard to 0.11 decimals of land of Plot No. 1109 appertaining to Khata No. 1212, Annexure-8 has been cancelled. He is further aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division in Mutation Revision No. 27 of 2004-05, Annexure-2, whereunder challenge raised against the original order dated 02.09.2004, Annexure-1 was dismissed holding that second revision is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 2 that Jamabandi created on the basis of the Purcha dated 03.11.1994, Annexure-8 could not have been cancelled without cancelling the Purcha as from the application for granting of Purcha, as contained in Annexure-3 itself it would appear that Circle Officer, Respondent No.4 was requested to grant Basgit Purcha as petitioner was a landless tenant residing over the lands in-question and appreciating such fact Respondent No. 4 passed order dated 07.10.1994, Annexure-4 for issue of notice pursuant whereto notice, Annexure-5 was issued and after receipt of the report from the Karmchari, as is evident from Annexure-6, order dated 03.11.1994, Annexure-7 was passed for grant of Purcha in favour of the petitioner on the basis of which Purcha dated 03.11.1994, Annexure-8 was issued in favour of the petitioner. It has been asserted in the writ petition that the certified copy of the application, notice, order and Purcha, as contained in Annexures- 3 to 8 were issued by the authorities, which the petitioner is still having and on the basis of the certified copies of the documents contained in Annexures- 3 to 8 it is submitted that unless the Purcha issued in favour of the petitioner is cancelled the Jamabandi created on the basis of the Purcha could not have been cancelled. 5. Counsel for the State has opposed the 3 submission with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit. He states that from perusal of the documents appended with the writ petition as Annexures- 3 to 8 it will appear that petitioner was allowed Purcha for 0.11 decimals of land of Plot No. 1109 appertaining to Khata No. 1212 of Village Simartalla after initiating proceeding bearing Case No. 60 of 1994-95 but from the register of the cases instituted in the year 1994- 95 it does not appear that any case bearing No. 60 of 1994-95 was initiated at the instance of the petitioner in that year and on that basis it is submitted that the documents on the basis of which this writ petition has been founded is nothing but forged documents. 6. Appreciating the aforesaid submission when this Court perused the counter affidavit, it found that thereunder the deponent of the counter affidavit has not stated that the certified copies relied on by the petitioner are forged. In the circumstances, the submission of the counsel that no such case at the instance of the petitioner was ever instituted in the year 1994-95 does not appear to be true. However, I would like to give the authorities yet another chance to enquire into the matter and accordingly quash both the impugned orders dated 02.09.2004 passed by Collector, Katihar in Misc. Revenue Revision Case No. 234 of 2001-02, Annexure-1 4 and the order dated 22.07.2006 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division in Mutation Revision No. 27 of 2004-05, Annexure-2 and remit back the matter to the Collector of the District who should initiate an enquiry in the matter and call for the original certified copies from the petitioner and thereafter satisfy for himself as to whether those certified copies were issued by the competent person empowered to issue such certified copies and in the event he concludes that the certified copies are genuine then he should close the proceedings. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Collector, Katihar on 17th November, 2008 along with a certified copy of this order. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)