IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2090 of 2004 PRABHU YADAV @ PRAMOD DAYAL, SON OF DEGAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAKARPUR, P.S. HASUA, DISTRICT NAWADAH. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, NAWADA 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, RAJOULI, NAWADAH 4. RAM BALAK RAM, SON OF GOVIND RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAKARPUR 5. KARU YADAV, SON OF GOVIND YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAKARPUR ---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 30.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. Petitioner is the purchaser. The pre-emption application was allowed on 30.8.2003 with a direction that the land should be conveyed in favour of the pre-emptor. The purchaser who was a poor man did not appear before the L.R.D.C. and made an application praying therein that he had gone to Kolkata to earn his livelihood and thereafter fell sick and therefore, could not attend the Court and thus he made a prayer for recall of the earlier order dated 30.8.2003. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the order by referring to a judgment reported in 1977 PLJR 208 wherein this Court has held that the Magistrate or Sub-ordinate authority could recall an ex-parte order although there is no provision of recall under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. On perusal of the order impugned, it appears that this matter does not really relate to recall on the ground that it was an ex-parte order which would necessarily mean that no notices were 2 issued or that if notices were issued they were not received by the respondents. In this case notices were issued and the respondents had appeared in the Court of the D.C.L.R. but thereafter absented himself. In any event, this Court finds that the order dated 30.8.2003 can be challenged by filing an appeal. The limitation in filing the appeal would necessarily have to be condoned in view of intervening circumstances in this case. The petitioner-purchaser had moved this Court on 16.2.2004 against the order dated 12.12.2003, which is being disposed of today, and thus he was pursuing the legal remedy available to him which is good ground for condoning the delay. Therefore, this Court holds that the order dated 12.12.2003 is quashed with liberty to the respondents to file an appeal along with a limitation petition against the order dated 30.8.2003. This writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations. In the mean time, till disposal of the appeal, the order of reconveyance of title shall remain stayed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)