IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8421 of 2002 DEO NARAIN RAI son of Late Dharanand Rai, resident of village- Rupauli, P.S.- Jankinagar, Anchal- Banmankhi, District- Punea. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Sub-divisional Officer, Banmankhi, Purnea 3. The Circle Officer, Banmankhi, Purnea 4. Smt. Saraswati Devi wife of Late Chandra Shekhar Choudhary, resident of village-Rupauli, P.S.- Jankinagar, Anchal- Banmankhi, District- Purnea. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Rang Nath Choubey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anwar Karim, A.C. to S.C. V For the respondent no.4 : Mr. P.N.Shahi, Mr. Sanjit Kumar Singh, Advocates. **** 3 04.03.2009 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondents. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2001 (Annexure2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Banmankhi, respondent no.2 in Revenue Appeal No. 10 of 1994-95, whereby he has set aside the order dated 16.07.1994 (Annexure-1) passed by the Circle Officer under section 48(d) of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in Bataidari Case No. 58 of 1992-93. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order contained in Annexure-1 was set aside by the respondent no.2 without considering the large number of evidences produced by the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - 2 - no.4 submits that the respondent no.3 has passed the order under section 48(d) of the Act in favour of the petitioner without considering the period of possession as also the right of the respondent no.4 who was a widow. In other words, he submits that before passing any order under section 48(d) of the Act the respondent no.3 ought to have passed the order in terms of section 48( C) of the Act after considering the application of the petitioner for declaring him as an occupancy Raiyat. Learned counsel, however, supports the order passed by the respondent no.2. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, it appears that in the interest of justice the evidences adduced on behalf of the petitioner claiming his occupancy right ought to have been considered first in terms of the provisions contained in section 48 (C )of the Act vis-à-vis the claim of the respondent no.4 that no such right can be declared in favour of the petitioner as the respondent no.4 was a widow at the material time. In this view of the matter, the order dated 16.07.1994 (Annexure-1) passed in Bataidari Case No. 58 of 1992-93 and the order dated 29.12.2001 (Annexure-2) in Revenue Appeal No. 10 of 1994-95 are, hereby, quashed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to - 3 - file fresh application before the respondent no.3 claiming him to be occupancy Raiyat. In case such application is filed within a period of two months from today along with the certified copy of the present order, the respondent no.3 shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law expeditiously after hearing both the parties and considering the materials brought on record by the parties in support of their respective claims. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Mcverma (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)