IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12643 of 2002 GHANSHYAM MISHRA son of late Vishwanath Mishra, resident of village Paroraha, P.S. Shikarpur, District West Champaran, …. ..Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna, 2. The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah, 3. The Additional Collector, West Champaran,Bettiah, … .. Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Uma Shankar Shukla, Sr.Advocate, For the S t a t e : Mr. Ajay, SC 3(Ceiling). …. 8 17.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press I.A. No. 5211 of 2002. As such, the aforesaid interlocutory application is dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner has challenged the notice served upon him in Revenue Appeal No. 11/02-03, as contained in annexure 6 to the writ application, as well as the entire proceeding of the case. Subsequently, I.A. No. 5396 of 2002 was filed for certain amendments/additional prayer in the writ application and the same was allowed on 04.02.2003, as a result of which the interim order dated 15.11.2002 passed 2 in R.A. Mo. 11/02-03, as contained in annexure 10 to the writ application, is also now under challenge. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court towards the memorandum of the appeal filed by the State, upon which the aforesaid appeal has been registered, which is contained in annexure 7 of the supplementary affidavit. It is submitted that it is a peculiar case, in which the appeal has been filed by the State of Bihar through the Collector, West Champaran, before the Collector, West Champaran himself, where notices were issued and interim order was passed by the Collector himself. Learned counsel for the State also admits that there has been serious error in the procedure to be followed as the appeal could not have been filed and decided by the same authority. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the error committed by the Collector, West Champaran, vitiates the entire proceeding and, as such, the notice, as contained in annexure 6, and the order dated 15.11.2002, as contained in annexure 10 as well as the entire proceeding in R.A. No. 11/02-03 are hereby 3 quashed. Accordingly, this writ application stands allowed. However, it will be open to the State to file an appeal in accordance with law before the appropriate authority, subject to limitation, if any. If such appeal is preferred, then the petitioner should also be given opportunity to contest the same by raising all the relevant questions including the question of limitation. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)