IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14325 of 2001 SITARAM PASWAN & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 10. 23.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. None appears for Private Respondent No.5 although he has been served with the notice of these proceedings. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 05.09.1990 passed by the Circle Officer, Sikti, Respondent No.4 in Basgit Case No. 74 of 1990-91, Annexure-3 granting Purcha over the lands in-question in favour of Private Respondent No.5. They are also aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2001 passed by the Collector of the District in Case No. 5 of 1998-99, Annexure-6, whereunder revision filed against the order dated 05.09.1990, Annexure-3 was dismissed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Private Respondent No.5 applied for grant of Purcha over the lands in-question on 05.09.1990 which was considered by the Collector under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on the same day and on the basis of the report of the Karmchari received on the same day direction for grant of Purcha was issued. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that such grant was contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) as thereunder the enquiry with regard to the grant of Purcha is to - 2 - be made by an Officer not below than the rank of Revenue/Welfare Inspector. In the present case according to the counsel for the petitioners no enquiry by the competent person was ever made and on this ground alone the grant of Purcha made in favour of Private Respondent No.5 is vitiated. 4. Against the order granting Purcha original petitioner filed revision before the Collector of the District invoking his jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act, which revision was also dismissed under orders dated 24.09.2001, Annexure-6 holding that original petitioner has not been able to establish that he was in any way connected with the land holder Panchkauri Paswan. 5. While dismissing the appeal/revision the Collector of the District relied on the circumstance that original petitioner could not establish his relationship with Panchkauri Paswan the land holder and while relying on such circumstance, the learned Collector also held that the appeal/revision was barred by limitation. 6. Counsel for the petitioners has contested the aforesaid finding of the Collector with reference to the deposition of the father of the Private Respondent No. 5 recorded in Complaint Case No. 1175 C of 1999 in the court of Sri Hari Shankar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Araria in paragraph 9 whereof the father of Private Respondent No.5 categorically accepted that father of original petitioner (Surtilal Paswan) Chathu Paswan was the brother of Panchkauri Paswan. - 3 - 7. None has controverted the aforesaid submission. In the circumstances, this Court accepts the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the pleadings made in the writ petition and the rejoinder affidavit containing the deposition of Kusheshwar Paswan, father of Private Respondent No.5 and on the basis of the statements made in the writ petition, rejoinder affidavit as also of the deposition of Kusheshwar Paswan, father of Private Respondent No.5, set asides the two impugned orders dated 05.09.1990 passed by the Circle Officer, Sikti, Respondent No.2 in Basgit Case No. 74 of 1990-91, Annexure-3 and the order dated 24.09.2001 passed by the Collector, Araria in Case No. 5 of 1998-99, Annexure-6 and the matter is remitted back to the Circle Officer, Sikti, Araria, Respondent No.4 who should get the matter enquired into by a competent person, as is required under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules and thereafter proceed in accordance with law but before proceeding further the Circle Officer must be satisfied as to whether Private Respondent No.5 is a privileged tenant/ person in terms of the Act. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)