IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.725 of 2008 MOHAN SAO, son of late Hira Lal Sao, resident of village Saraiya, P.S. Krishnagarh, P.S. Barahara, District Bhojpur … Respondent no. 3(b)-Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Collector of District Bhojpur, Arrah 2. Anchaladhikari, Anchal Barahara, vested with the power of Collector under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, P.S. Barahara, District Bhojpur … Respondents-Respondents. 3. Baij Nath Upadhya, son of late Ram Niwas Upadhya, resident of village Mamrakhpur and Saraiya Bazar, P.S. Krishnagarh Anchal Barahara, District Bhojpur 4(a) Deo Sundri Kunwar, W/o Late Ram Prit Singh (b) Ram Bihari Singh, S/o late Ram Prit Singh (c) Bimlesh Kumar Singh, S/o late Ram Prit Singh, All resident of Saraiya Bazar, P.S. Krishnagarh, District Bhojpur 5. Panna Lal Sao, son of Late Bansropan Sahu 6. Hari Prakash Sao, son of late Bansropan Sahu 7. Ram Kishori Devi, widow of Hira Lal Sao 8. Sohan Sao, son of late Hira Lal Sao 9. Munni Kumari, D/o late Hira Lal Sao All residents of village Saraiya, P.S. Krishnagarh, District Bhojpur … Respondents-Respondents. ----------- 10. 25.3.2010 I.A.No. 5747/2008 This is an application for condonation of delay of 342 days. We have heard Mr. K.N.Chaubey, learned Senior counsel alongwith Mr. Sidharth Harsh, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Ishwari Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. We have also heard Mr. 2 Anis Akhtar, learned counsel for the State. The only point urged for condonation of delay is that the appellant was not served the notice of the writ petition. The same is disputed but regard being had to the totality of the circumstances we are inclined to condone the delay and accordingly, it is so ordered. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. L.P.A.No. 725/2008 As we have condoned the delay we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission and on consent of the parties it is finally heard. In this appeal the challenge is to the order dated 20th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 7763/1988. In the said writ petition the order passed by the Anchaladhikari was called in question. Though the learned Single Judge has scan the various provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 and the rules framed thereunder eventually remanded the matter on the ground that though the Act and Rules mandated that the enquiry is to be conducted by the Anchal Nirikshak (Circle 3 Inspector) or the Welfare Inspector, the same was done by a ‘Karamchari’ and therefore, whole enquiry was ab initio void. Be it noted, the Parcha was granted in favour of the appellant on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Karamchari. It is submitted by Mr. Chaubey the same was approved by the Anchaladhikari. In our considered opinion mere approval would not tantamount to conducting of the enquiry when the Act categorically mandates that the same has to be done by the Anchal Nirikshak. In view of the aforesaid, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the matter afresh by the competent authority cannot be found fault with. However, while concurring with the order of the learned Single Judge we only hasten to add that the observation or finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in respect of any particular fact shall not be taken aid of by either of the parties and the competent authority shall proceed totally independently within the parameters of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 and the rules framed thereunder. The exercise shall be 4 completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order passed today. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the learned Single Judge the appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost. (Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/