IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5413 of 2010 SMT. MANIYA DEVI W/O LATE RAM SAGAR RAID R/O VILLAGE- KANSAR, POLICE STATION AND ANCHAL- BELSAND, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUBDIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE BELSAND, SITAMARHI 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER P.O. AND P.S. BELSAND, SITAMARHI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REVENUE P.O. AND P.S.- BELSAND, SITAMARHI 5. BASUDEO SAH S/O ................................... R/O VILLAGE- KANSAR, POLICE STATION- BELSAND, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI 6. JANAK SAH S/O ............................. R/O VILLAGE- KANSAR, POLICE STATION- BELSAND, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI 7. UMAKANT KUER S/O.................................. R/O KANSAR, P.O.-P.S. AND ANCHAL- BELSAND, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI(LAND HOLDER) ----------- 03. 05.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Father-in-law of the petitioner was granted purcha over the raiyati lands of Chandra Shekher Singh, as would appear from the purcha granted in connection with Case No.16 of 1982-83 and 51 of 1978-79, Annexure-5 series, which became subject matter of C.W.J.C. No.803 of 1986 disposed of under orders dated 30.7.1986, Annexure- 7 and purcha issued in favour of father-in-law of the petitioner was set aside on the ground that Chandra Shekher Singh, the landlord was not heard before grant of purcha in favour of father-in-law of the petitioner. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of order dated 30.7.1986, Annexure-7 itself it would appear that thereunder this Court did not consider the case of the parties on merits but simply set aside the purcha issued in favour of father in law of the petitioner on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid background it was always open for the authorities to again consider the case of father-in- - 2 - law of the petitioner and after his demise the case of the petitioner for grant of purcha over the lands in question. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State as also having perused the earlier orders of this Court dated 30.7.1986, Annexure-7, I am of the view that as the earlier purcha issued in favour of father in law of the petitioner was quashed by this Court on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, it is always open for the authorities to pass fresh orders in accordance with law after notice to the raiyat and the petitioner who is claiming to be the privileged tenant under the raiyat. 5. With the observation aforesaid this writ application is disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)