CRIMINAL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.295 OF 2001 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) JAI GOVIND SINGH SON OF LATE RAM DAHIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANJHAULI, P.S. SANJHAULI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS, SASARAM ...... PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BIKRAMGANJ, ROHTAS, SASARAM 3. JAI RAM SINGH SON OF LATE RAM DAHIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SANJHAULI, P.S. SANJHAULI, DISTRICT- ROHTAS, SASARAM ....... RESPONDENTS ----------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA S.K.SINHA,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears either for the State or the respondent no.3. Mr. Dinbandhu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 29.10.1999 passed in Misc. Case No. 1219M/99 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas has been passed without notice to the petitioner and pursuant to the aforesaid notice as per letter no. 40 dated 18.01.2000 as contained in Annexure-2 a further action was taken by which boundary wall was given on the land of the petitioner with the help of the administration. It is further submitted that the petitioner on being aggrieved, moved before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas vide Misc. Case No. 1367 of 2000, however the same was dropped observing that the petitioner did not assail the order before the appropriate Court against the aforesaid order dated 29.10.1999. Considering the submissions and on perusal of the order dated 29.10.1999 as contained in Annexure-1 it does not appear that the petitioner who was the second party in the aforesaid case was given any notice before the order could be passed. In this case no counter affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the State or on behalf of the respondent no.3 despite notice and appearance. In the above circumstances, the order dated 29.10.1999 and the follow up action pursuant to the aforesaid order as per letter no. 40 dated 18.01.2000 as contained in Annexures-1 & 2 respectively could not be sustained in law and are accordingly quashed. However, it is made clear that quashing of the aforesaid orders as contained in Annexures-1 & 2 shall not come into the way of either of the party i.e. the petitioner and the respondent no.3 to approach the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bikramganj at Rohtas or any other competent authority under the law for redressal of their grievances. The writ application stands allowed to the above extent. PATNA HIGH COURT THE 31st MARCH, 2011 MANISH/N.A.F.R. ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)