IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3517 of 2002 GOPAL SAH son of Late Deoki Sah, resident of village- Banki Tikam, P.S.- Madhuban, District- Motihari (East Champaran). Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Pakri Dayal, East Champaran 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Pakri Dayal, East Champaran 5. The Circle Officer, Pakri Dayal East Champaran 6. Sri Mahendra Sah son of Vathu Sah, resident of village- Banki Tikam, P.S.- Madhuban, East Champaran. ----------- 5 04.03.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.6. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3rd of January, 2001 passed in Revenue Appeal No. 33 of 1994-95 by the respondent no.2, the Collector of the district, whereby the Parcha issued in favour of the petitioner in respect of 3 decimals of land in village Bankitokam appertaining to Khata No.93, Khesra No. 998 in Case No. 15 of 1975-76 was cancelled. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Parcha issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no.2 without considering the report of the Circle Officer submitted before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms as per his letter no. 119 dated 01.03.1994 (Annexure-2). It is further submitted that the Circle Officer, Madhuban in his report has specifically stated that the respondent no.6 was having about 2 - 2 - Bighas of land and so far as the petitioner Gopal Sah is concerned he is a landless persons and save and except the land covered under Parcha he has land measuring about three and half Kathas only. It is further contended that the respondent no.2 while cancelling the Parcha issued in favour of the petitioner in Case No. 15 of 1975- 76 did not take into consideration the aforesaid report of the Circle Officer which was already available on record. The said report was submitted by the Circle Officer pursuant to the report called for by the respondent no.4 as per his letter no. 37 dated 21.01.1994. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the order contained in Annexure-4 deserves to be quashed. In this case by order dated 23.12.2008 four weeks’ time was allowed to all the respondents to file counter affidavit, however, no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned order and submitted that the respondent no.2 has passed the order after considering the entire records of the matter, however he is not in position to say that while passing the impugned order the respondent no.2 whether the report of the Circle Officer was taken into consideration or not. - 3 - Having considered the submissions of the parties, it appears that the report of the Circle Officer submitted to the respondent no.4 as per the letter no. 119 dated 01.03.1994 (Annexure-2) being an important document touching the claim of the respective parties with regard to possession of land held by them ought to have been taken into consideration. It further appears that the respondent no.2 has passed the order on consideration of the order dated 20th of May, 1994 passed by the respondent no.4 in Case No. 1of 1994 filed by the respondent no.6, however there is no consideration with regard to the report of the Circle Officer filed before the respondent no.4 in the said case No. 1 of 1994. In this view of the matter, for the reasons stated above, the order dated 3rd of January, 2001 can not be sustained in law. The same is, accordingly, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for passing the order afresh in accordance with law after considering the materials available on record after hearing both the parties. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. mcverma (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)