IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3539 of 2002 JANESHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE KAWAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PIPRA BAGAHI, P.S. KUTUMBA, P.O. PIPRA-BAGAHI, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT NAGRATOLI, CIRCULAR ROAD, RANCHI, P.O. LALPUR, DISTRICT RANCHI. …………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, GAYA, P.O. AND DISTRICT GAYA. 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE (COLLECTOR) AURANGABAD, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 4. SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, AURANGABAD, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 5. DEPUTY COLLECTOR-IN-CHARGE, LAND REFORMS, AURANGABAD, P.O., P.S. AND DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 6. CIRCLE OFFICER, KUTUMBA (AMBA), P.O. AMBA, DISTRICT AURANGABAD. 7. SHYAMLAL RAM, SON OF NANHAK RAM. 8. LAKESHWAR BHUIAN @ KESHWAR BHUIAN, SON OF JHARI BHUIAN. 9. SAKINDAR BHUIAN @ SATENDRA BHUIAN, SON OF JHARI BHUIAN. 10. SMT. SHANTI DEVI, WIFE OF RAMDEO CHOUDHARY ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- PIPRA-BAGAHI, P.S.KUTUMBA P.O. PIPRA-BAGAHI, DISTRICT-AURANGABAD (BIHAR STATE)………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 9. 19. 01. 09. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 29. 11. 2001, passed by Respondent No. 2, in Aurangabad Settlement Revision No. 29 of 2001, whereby the same was dismissed as the petitioner was not present on the date of hearing although he was appearing on the previous dates. It is submitted that the Commissioner dismissed the case taken into consideration the non-appearance of the petitioner as well as the submissions made on behalf of the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State on the said date. - 2 - Learned counsel for the State submits that since the petitioner was not appearing on the date as such the Respondent No. 2, rightly passed the order. Considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the pleadings as also impugned order, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper that the Respondent No. 2, dispose of the case on merit considering the points raised by the petitioner in his petition as also the documents relied upon.. In view of order dated 29. 11. 2001, passed in Aurangabad Settlement Revision No. 29 of 2001, as contained in Annexure-15, quashed the order and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No. 2 for passing the order afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The Writ Application is, accordingly, disposed of. m.p. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)