IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5353 of 2005 1. SITA DEVI WIFE OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN. 2. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN SON OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN. 3. SANGITA JAIN WIFE OF AJAY KUMAR JAIN. 4. SUNANDA AGARWAL WIFE OF LATE SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL. 5. SUNITA AGARWAL WIFE OF BIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL. 6. REENA AGARWAL WIFE OF SANJU AGARWAL, PETITIIONER NO. 3 TO 6 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-RAJENDRA PATH, P.O. SIWAN, P.S. SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN………..VENDEES, RESPONDENTS, PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 4. D.C.L.R., SIWAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 5. HARENDRA SAH. 6. SURENDRA SAH. 7. BIRENDRA SAH, ALL SONS OF GAJADHAR SAH, RESPONDENT OF 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FAZILPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- HUSSAINGANJ, DISTRICT- SIWAN. …….PRE-EMPTORS, APPELLANTS, PETITIONERS, RESPONDENTS. 8. RAM BHADUR PRASAD SON OF BABU JANG BHADUR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARAYA, P.O. AND P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTRICT-SIWAN …………VENDOR, RESPONDENT. WITH CWJC No.5371 of 2005 1. SITA DEVI WIFE OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN. 2. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN SON OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN. 3. SANGITA JAIN WIFE OF AJAY KUMAR JAIN. 4. SUNANDA AGARWAL WIFE OF LATE SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL. 5. SUNITA AGARWAL WIFE OF BIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL. 6. REENA AGARWAL WIFE OF SANJU AGARWAL, PETITIIONER NO. 3 TO 6 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-RAJENDRA PATH, P.O. SIWAN, P.S. SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN ………..VENDEES, RESPONDENTS, PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 4. D.C.L.R., SIWAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 5. HARENDRA SAH. 6. SURENDRA SAH. 7. BIRENDRA SAH, ALL SONS OF GAJADHAR SAH, RESPONDENT OF 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FAZILPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- HUSSAINGANJ, DISTRICT- SIWAN. …….PRE-EMPTORS, APPELLANTS, PETITIONERS, RESPONDENTS. 2 8. RAM BHADUR PRASAD SON OF BABU JANG BHADUR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARAYA, P.O. AND P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTRICT-SIWAN …………VENDOR, RESPONDENT. WITH CWJC No.5395 of 2005 1. SITA DEVI WIFE OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN. 2. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN SON OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN. 3. SANGITA JAIN WIFE OF AJAY KUMAR JAIN. 4. SUNANDA AGARWAL WIFE OF LATE SHIV KUMAR AGARWAL. 5. SUNITA AGARWAL WIFE OF BIMAL KUMAR AGARWAL. 6. REENA AGARWAL WIFE OF SANJU AGARWAL, PETITIIONER NO. 3 TO 6 ARE DAUGHTERS OF LATE UDAI KISHORE JAIN ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-RAJENDRA PATH, P.O. SIWAN, P.S. SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN ………..VENDEES, RESPONDENTS, PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, SIWAN, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 4. D.C.L.R., SIWAN, DISTRICT- SIWAN. 5. HARENDRA SAH. 6. SURENDRA SAH. 7. BIRENDRA SAH, ALL SONS OF GAJADHAR SAH, RESPONDENT OF 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FAZILPUR, P.O. AND P.S.- HUSSAINGANJ, DISTRICT- SIWAN. …….PRE-EMPTORS, APPELLANTS, PETITIONERS, RESPONDENTS. 8. RAM BHADUR PRASAD SON OF BABU JANG BHADUR PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SARAYA, P.O. AND P.S. HUSSAINGANJ, DISTRICT-SIWAN …………VENDOR, RESPONDENT. ----------- 6. 05.04.2011 Heard. All these matters raise similar issues. The parties are the same. The matter arises out of ceiling proceeding. Three petitions were filed originally followed by three appeals and three revisions. In that background, the three applications, with the consent of the parties, have been heard together and are being disposed of. One Udai Kishore Jain purchased tracts of land by 03 sale deeds. Respondent nos. 5 to 7 filed three cases under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling 3 Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act), giving rise to L.C. Case Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of 1993-94. The respondent-Deputy Collector Land Reforms by a proceeding dated 25.9.1995(Annexure-7), rejected all the three applications. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order respondents 5 to 7 preferred three appeals being L.C. App. Nos. 324, 325 and 326 of 1995-96. All the three appeals were heard analogously. The appellate court/authority by a common order dated 6.1.2001 (Annexure-8) dismissed the appeals preferred by the pre- emptor(s) respondents 5 to 7. Aggrieved over the aforesaid order, three revision applications were preferred by the pre- emptors being Revision Nos. 38, 39 and 40 of 2001. Aforesaid revision applications were heard analogously and the revisional court by a common resolution dated 8.2.2005 (Annexure-1) allowed the claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of the revisionists (respondent nos. 5 to 7) and the original order and appellate order was/were set aside. Aggrieved by the said resolution of the Board of Revenue, the present writ application has been filed by the heirs and legal representatives of original vendee, namely, Udai Kishore Jain. Mr. Dwidedi, learned Counsel appearing in support of three applications, raised a very short point. It is contended that the original vendee (father of writ petitioners herein) had died on 25.12.2004. He handed in certified copy of the entire order-sheet of the revisional court which is accepted on record and marked ‘X’. Referring to the order-sheet of the revisional 4 court, it is contended that on the date when the case was fixed for ex parte hearing, the vendee had died and no steps for his substitution was taken. Subsequent thereof, the matter was heard by the Board of Revenue on 8.2.2005 and allowed. It is thus contended that on the date when the original purchaser, (O.P. in the proceeding) died, the case was not finally heard. The matter was finally heard and disposed of on 12.1.2005 and subsequently disposed of by order dated 8.2.2005. Admittedly, on 12.1.2005 the original vendee (father of the writ petitioners) herein was no more and as such, the revisional order was passed against a dead person and the same would be a nullity in the eye of law. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand submits that on service of notice the original vendee, namely, Udai Kishore Jain had appeared through the counsel. It appears that after 10.1.2005 no one appeared on behalf of the original vendee. It is submitted that the counsel representing the Opposite Party in the revisional court (original vendee) was required to inform the court about death of the original vendee. That having not been made, the subsequent order passed by the authority cannot be said to be void or a nullity as having been passed against a dead party, Counsel for the respondent, however, admits that on the date when the revision application was being heard i.e. on 12.1.2005 and on the subsequent date when the order was delivered i.e. on 8.2.2005 the original vendee was dead. 5 Let it be recorded that necessary pleadings in this regard have been made in paragraph nos. 10 to 12 of the writ petition which have not been denied by the respondents. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 5 to 7 wherein averments made in paragraphs 10 to 12 have been dealt with in paragraph nos. 22 to 24 but the factum of death of original vendee on the death when the case was fixed for ex parte hearing is therefore not in dispute. Law is well settled that if an order is passed against a dead person without bringing his heirs and legal representatives on record then the same would be void or a nullity as the order cannot be enforced against a dead person. From the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the pleadings on record it is obvious that the original vendee (father of the writ petitioners) was dead when the case was being heard by the respondent revisional court. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to show with reference to the case law or the provisions of the Act that the counsel who earlier represented the original vendee was required to inform the court about the death of his client. In view of my discussions made above, I am persuaded to hold that the impugned resolution dated 8.2.2005 passed by the respondent Additional Member Board of Revenue in case nos. 38/2001, 39/2001, 40/ 2001 merits interference on the said ground. Let be recorded that I have not been addressed on merits of the claim/counter claim made by the parties. This 6 court, however, observes that the respondents 5 to 7 would be at liberty to pursue the matter before the revisional court in accordance with law. Devendra/ ( K.K. Mandal, J.)