IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12897 of 2011 Ganesh Mishra S/O Late Ram Nath Msihra R/O Vill.- Sarisab Pahi, Anchal- Pandaul, P..S- Pandaul, Distt.- Madhubani.. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. The Collector of the District (D.M), Madhubani, 3. The Additional Collector (Land And Revenue), Madhubani, 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (D.C.L.R), Madhubani, 5. The Anchala Adhikari (Circle Officer), Pandaul, Madhubani, … … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashi Nath Jha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Kamalesh Kr. Sharma,AC to SC 22 … 4 09.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 02.03.2011 as contained in Annexure 7 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani. Learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner, as stated in paragraph 14 of the writ application, had appeared pursuant to the notice as contained in Annexure 5 and has filed his reply with a prayer to drop the proceeding, the order impugned has been passed on the ground that the petitioner, even after issuance of notice, has failed to produce any evidence in 2 his favour. It is urged that while doing so, respondent no. 4 did not even consider the written reply filed by the petitioner. That apart, it is also contended that no proper proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner under section 4(g) or any other provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act for the purpose. Despite indulgence granted to learned counsel for the State on 05.09.2011 itself and thereafter again on 17.10.2011 no counter affidavit could be filed on behalf of the State. In above view of the matter, there is no option than to proceed and consider this case without any counter affidavit having been filed on behalf of the State. From the impugned order, it appears that there has been no consideration even of the written reply filed by the petitioner, a copy of which is contained in Annexure 6 and the filing of the same has not been denied by the State by filing any counter affidavit. As a result, this writ application succeeds on the aforesaid ground. The impugned order as contained in Annexure 7 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani, respondent no. 4, is quashed and the 3 matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 4 to consider the case afresh and take a decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all concerned. Since this order has been passed in presence of learned counsel for the petitioner it is expected that the petitioner would appear within six weeks along with a certified copy of this order and thereafter the concerned authority will proceed with the matter and while doing so it would adhere to the principles of audi alteram partem and take a decision in accordance with law within six months thereafter. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner does not appear within the aforesaid period or does not cooperate in the proceeding by appearing on the dates fixed then the authority concerned would be at liberty to consider the case even in his absence and pass necessary order. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)