IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7575 of 2010 1. YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE TULSI PRASAD SINGH R/O VILL.- AKILPUR, P.S. AKILPUR (DANAPUR), DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, DANAPUR, PATNA 5. RAM PRAVESH SINGH S/O LATE GANI SINGH 6. BRAHMA SINGH S/O LATE DENI SINGH Both resident of Village + P.S.- Akilpur (Danapur), District- Patna :-- Respondents. ----------- 02. 07.05.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Wife of the petitioner is the purchaser of the lands in-question under sale-deed dated 17.7.2002 which became subject matter of Pre- emption Case No. 2/2002-03 before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Danapur. The Pre-emption case was allowed under order dated 23.10.2003, Annexure-1 against which wife of the petitioner filed Land Ceiling Appeal No. 08/2003-04 before the Collector and District Magistrate, Patna. The appeal was dismissed for default under orders dated 4.8.2004, Annexure-2 as petitioner and his lawyer failed to appear before the appellate court on 2.7.2004 and on that date and in appreciation of such default in appearance the appeal was dismissed. During the pendency of the appeal the wife of the petitioner became ill and died after dismissal of the Land Ceiling Appeal on 13.11.2004 and just before her death revision application was filed before the Divisional Commissioner on 13.10.2004 which has been dismissed under order dated 10.10.2009, Annexure-3 on the ground that the forum for revision on the date of dismissal of the appeal was before the Board of Revenue and not the Divisional Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order dated 4.8.2004 passed by the - 2 - Collector, Annexure-2 and 10.10.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Annexure-3 on the ground that neither the appellate court nor the revisional court considered the case of the petitioner on merit and dismissed the appeal and revision on the ground of default and that the revisional forum was Board of Revenue and not Divisional Commissioner. It is submitted that the appellate and the revisional court has not considered the case of the petitioner on merit and matter may be remitted back to the appellate authority so as to enable the appellate authority to consider the case of the petitioner on merit. 3. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Collector for failure of the petitioner and his lawyer to appear before the appellate court on two occasions. Accordingly, the appellate order dated 4.8.2004, Annexure-2 and the revisional order dated 10.10.2009, Annexure-3 is set aside with direction to the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs. 2,000/- in the court of the Collector, Patna within four weeks from today, whereafter the Collector, Patna shall issue notice to the pre-emptor and after his appearance the amount of cost be paid to him and the matter be considered on merit and the appeal disposed of in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the pre-emptor. It is agreed by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner shall not take any unreasonable adjournment before the learned Collector. 4. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)