IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16393 of 2011 Shashi Bhushan Kumar @ Shashi Bhushan Mehta, son of Gobardhan Mehta, Resident of village Tarabe, P.O.Korihar, P.S. Gamharia, District Madhepura ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Madhepura, District Madhepura ….. Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar No. 1, Advocate For the State : A.C. to AAG 12 2 26.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.5.2010 passed by the Collector, Madhepura in Sairat Case No. 01 of 2010, which has been dismissed on the ground that review application has been filed after a lapse of about nine months. The petitioner also challenges the original ex parte order dated 24.8.2009 passed in Sairat Case No. 90 of 1998-99, whereby the case concerned has been closed holding that the petitioner was not appearing in the case since 15.12.2008. Prima facie, the petitioner could not point 2 out anything justifying his absence for the aforesaid period before the District Magistrate, Madhepura in the aforesaid case. However, it appears that the aforesaid case was being heard in compliance of a direction of this Court under the order dated 24.11.1998 passed in CWJC No. 494/1998 regarding the amount. The relevant passage of the aforesaid order is re-produced as under. “From the aforesaid pleading, it will be evident that period of settlement was made in favour of the petitioner (96-97) has already lapsed and the period for which prayer was made to extent, such settlement i.e. 97-98 also lapsed during the pendency of the writ petition. In the aforesaid premises the writ petition has become infructuous. So far as the expenditure as already made by the petitioner and the amount of bid which has already been deposited are concerned the petitioner may move before the Collector of the District in this respect for appropriate reliefs. If it is found that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner and because of some interim order of stay, the petitioner was not allowed to harvest the crops, in such case, 3 the Collector, Madhepura, will consider the case of petitioner sympathetically for settlement of tank in question for the future sessions. The writ petition stands disposed of with aforesaid observation.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that in view of the settlement made in favour of the petitioner for the year 1996-97 having lapsed already, the same had been found to be infructuous. However, so far the expenditure which has already been made by the petitioner and the amount of bid which has already been deposited, the petitioner was given liberty to move before the Collector of the District in this respect for appropriate relief and the Court has observed that since there was no fault on the part of the petitioner due to some interim order of stay, the petitioner was not allowed to harvest the crops, in such case, the Collector was directed to consider the case of petitioner sympathetically for settlement of tank in question for the future sessions also. It appears that a case was instituted upon 4 application having been filed by the petitioner bearing Sairat Case No. 90 of 1998-99, however, it remained pending for about ten years and thereafter on 24.8.2009 the case was closed in view of the fact that the petitioner was not attending the case for about eight months. However, since the matter had remained pending for ten years before the Collector, Madhepura, in the opinion of this Court, the same should have been disposed of on merit by reasoned order, which was the spirit of the order dated 24.11.1998 passed by this Court in CWJC No. 494 of 1998. Accordingly, the order dated 24.8.2009 as contained in Annexure 9 as well as the order dated 10.5.2010 as contained in Annexure 10 both are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the District Magistrate, Madhepura to hear the petitioner, consider the case on merit and pass necessary order as per the direction vide order dated 24.11.1998 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 494 of 1998. Petitioner is also directed to appear before the Collector, Madhepura within eight weeks along with a 5 certified copy of this order. In that case, the respondent no. 3 shall pass necessary order, after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within three months thereafter. In case the petitioner does not appear before him as above or after appearing with a copy of order, again starts evading the proceeding, then the respondent no. 3 would be at liberty to decide the case on its own merit even in the absence of the petitioner. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)