IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13357 of 2005 NAVEEN PRAKASH S/O LATE SRI GANGA PRSAD SINHA, R/O VILLAGE NARAINIA P.O. MIRGANJ, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MOHALLA- INDRAPURI, BEHIND POST OFFICE, WARD NO.8, DISTT.- GOPALGANJ-- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ 3. CIRCLE OFFICER, HATHWA 4. RAMPRAVESH MANJHI S/O JOGI MANJHI 5. NATHUNI MANJHI S/O SEO MANJHI BOTH R/O VILLAGE-NARAINIA PO. MIRGANJ DIST- GOPALGANJ--- RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 7.1.2009 Petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 6.1.2003 contained in annexue-5 which is the order of Anchal Adhikari, Hathuwa granting Basgit Purcha in favour of respondent nos. 4 and 5. He also wants quashing of the order dated 10.4.2005 passed in Revision Case No. 1 of 2003 by the Collector which is annexure-6 to the writ application. Petitioner challenges the two orders on the ground that the orders in question have been passed in breach of the mandatory provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. It is further contended that no proper enquiry or notice was issued by the competent authority who is either the Circle Inspector or the Welfare Inspector and, in fact, notice had been issued to a dead person i.e. father of the petitioner initially and the Circle Inspector has merely endorsed enquiry report furnished by the subordinate revenue authority mechanically. In view of the above the order contained in annexure-5 is an illegal order. He further contends that the Collector has mechanically endorsed the order contained in - 2 - annexure-5 even without considering some of the questions which has been raised by the petitioner in this regard. In addition to the above it is also contended that the private respondents cannot be said to be the privileged persons because there is indication in the order of the Circle Inspector itself that they had ancestral land and they are in possession of the same, therefore their claim for issuance of Basgit Purcha of the landless is also misplaced. In support of the submission with regard to the legality of the procedure and violation of Rule 5(1) and (2) reliance has been placed on a decision rendered in the case of Hiralal Vishwakarma vrs. Vishwanath Sah & Others reported in 1978 BLJ 217. Despite valid service of notice there is no representation on behalf of the private respondent nos. 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the State is present. Looking on the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Hiralal Vishwakarma (Supra) and after perusing annexures 1, 2 and 3, the Court comes to a consider opinion that the mandatory requirement of enquiry under necessary rules had not been carried out and therefore the consequential order contained in annexure-5 as well as the order contained in annexure-6 cannot be sustained. This writ application is allowed. Annexure-5 and annexure-6 are quashed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi J.)