IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.627 of 2007 1. Md. Muzamil son of late Md. Salim 2. Md. Harun son of late Md. Salim 3. Md. Quamruzzama son of late Md. Salim 4. Md. Quamer @ Shams Quamar son of late Md. Salim, all resident of Village and P.O. Amour P.S. Amour, District Purnea ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Collector , Purnea 2. The Commissioenr of Purnea Commissionary. 3. The Sub Divisional officer, Baisi, District- Purnea 4. The Circle Officer Amour, District Purnea --- - Respondent Ist Party. 5. Pradeep Kumar Roy son of late Ram Prasad Roy 6. Santosh Kumar Roy son of late Ram Prasad Roy 7. Binod Kumar Roy, son of late Ram Prasad Roy 8. Sumesh Kumar Roy son of late Ram Prasad Roy 9. Umesh Kumar Roy son of late Ram Prasad Roy 10. Chandra Kala Wife of late Ram Prasad Roy 11. Shri Prasad Roy son of late Hari lal Roy, respondent nos. 5 to 11 resident of village and P.O. Amour, P.S. Amour, District Purnea--- Respondent 2nd Party. 12. Mostt. Uma Devi wife of late Jagdish Roy 134. Arjun Roy son of late Jagdish Roy 14. Bipil Roy son of late Jagidish Roy 15. Sipin Roy son of late Jagdish Roy 16. Ashok Roy, son of Anuplal Ropy 17. Mostt. Sabita Devi wife of late Ganga Roy 18. Ranjit Roy son of late Ganga Roy 19. Sarwan Roy son of late Ganga Roy 20. Baljit Roy son of late Ganga Roy 21. Sanjit Roy son of late Ganga Roy ---- respondent nos. 12 to 21 resident of Village and P.O. Amour, P.S. Amour, District-Purnea ----- Respondent 3rd Parties. 2. 13.1.2009 Heard M.Z. Quamar for the petitioners, and Mr. Satendra Kumar Jha, learned Junior Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.7 for respondent nos. 1 to 4. We do not feel the necessity of issuing notices to respondent nos. 5 to 21 in view of the nature of the order that we are going to pass. This writ petition is directed against 2 the order dated 15.7.2006 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Commissioner of Purnea in Revenue Revision Case No. 2 of 2004 (Md. Muzamil and others Vrs. Ram Prasad Rai and others), whereby he has rejected the revision application preferred by the petitioners as not maintainable. This writ petition is further directed against the order dated 17.1.2002 (Annexure-2), passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Baisi in Revenue Appeal No. 8 of 2000-2001( Ram Prasad Rai Vrs. Md. Muzamil), whereby he has allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the learned first authority. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned revisional authority erred in holding that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application. He further submits that the learned appellate authority disposed of the matter in the absence of the petitioner (opposite party there). We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners had preferred an application under section 48 (D) of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885(hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking a declaration of occupancy as under-raiyat. The application was allowed by order dated 9.5.1998 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Amour, in Case no. 84 of 1996-97( Md. Muzamil & Ors. Vrs. Sk Bonai & Ors). The aggrieved persons preferred appeal which was allowed by the said order dated 17.1.2002 (Annexure-2), and the order of the learned first authority 3 was set aside. It appears that the present petitioners, who were opposite party before the learned appellate authority, were not present when the matter was taken up. However, on repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that notices were not issued to them. It appears to me that the notices were issued and were aware of the proceedings. The contention is, therefore, rejected. In so far the petitioner’s second contention with respect to the validity of the order of the learned Commissioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to bring to my notice any provision of law creating the forum of revision. I do not find any merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)