IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11445 of 2004 ABDUL RAQUIB son of late Bashiruddin, resident of village Sukhsaina, Tola Balwa, P.S. Palasi, District Araria .. … …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Collector, Araria, 3. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria, 4. Sk. Nasir son of late Ulfat, resident of village Sukhsaina, Tola Balwa, P.S. Palasi, District Araria, 5. Bibi Gulesha Khatoon wife of late Jamil, resident of lvillage Basantpur, P.S. and District Araria, 6(i). Abdul Raqib, 6(ii).Abdul Nayeem, 6(iii). Abdul Haleem, 6(iv).Abdul Aleem, 6(v).Sayeedar Rahman, 6(vi).Shafi Ahmad, 6(vii). Bibi Saleha Khatoon, all sons and daughter of late Bibi Khudija, resident of village Duba, Police Station Jokihat, District Araria, … … …. Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Sr. Advocate, M/s Abdul Aziz and Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocates For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, AC to SC V, Mr. Anwar Karim, AC to SC 5, Mr. R.K. Sinha, AC to SC 8. ----------- 9 16.09.2009 By filing this writ application the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.09.2004, as contained in annexure 1, passed by respondent no. 2, the Collector, Araria in Case No. 4/2002-2003, whereby he had dismissed the appeal/application filed by the petitioner challenging the 2 order dated 14.03.2001, passed by respondent no. 3, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Araria, and also for quashing the order dated 14.03.2001 passed by respondent no. 3 in Case No. 33/1999-2000, as contained in annexure 2. In response to notices issued by this Court only respondent no. 4, Sk. Nasir, in whose favour the orders have been passed, has appeared, whereas none has appeared on behalf of the recorded tenants, i.e. respondent nos. 5 and 6. I have heard the parties and perused the records of this case. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on an application filed by respondent no. 4 a proceeding under section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885(hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), with regard to the lands appertaining to revisional survey plot no. 1001, khata no. 55, measuring 41 decimal of village Sukhsaina was initiated. At the time of initiation of the aforesaid proceeding, the petitioner intervened and stated before the authority concerned that he had purchased land measuring an area of 20½ decimal from the eastern side of the plot aforesaid by a registered sale deed no. 1362 dated 16.06.1999 and order dated 20.07.2000 was allowed upon 3 his intervention. It would be manifest from the aforesaid order that the claim of this petitioner was acceded to and the land purchased by him was deleted from the proceeding and then the matter was referred to the Conciliation Board with regard to the remaining 20½ decimal of land only. However, subsequently, the Board by annexure 4, had made a recommendation with regard to the entire area of R.S. Plot No. 1001 completely in ignorance of the fact what was referred to it by the Collector under the Act. It is further contended that surprisingly, thereafter, respondent no. 3 also without considering and appreciating the earlier order expunging/deleting the land purchased by the petitioner from the proceeding concerned had accepted the recommendation of the Board by the impugned order, as contained in annexure 2, with regard to the entire 41 decimal of land of R.S. Plot No. 1001, which was initially claimed by respondent no. 4. Further submission is that all the exercise was done by the Conciliation Board and the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria, behind the back of the petitioner without issuing any notice to him. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector, Araria, which was numbered as Case No. 4/2002-2003. However, 4 the same has been rejected only on the ground of being time barred. In this regard, it is contended that after the order dated 20.07.2000 passed by respondent no. 3(as contained in annexure 3) deleting that part of land of R.S. Plot No. 1001, which was purchased by the petitioner, the petitioner was not concerned at all with regard to the remaining half of the land, and, thus, there was no occasion for him to appear in the proceeding. That apart, even the Conciliation Board or the respondent no. 3 himself at the time of considering the recommendation by the Conciliation Board, had not issued any notice to him, therefore, the factum of passing of the order, as contained in annexure 2, remained completely unnoticed by the petitioner till the respondent no. 4 threatened him and tried to dispossess him on 02.06.2002. Therefore, the contention is that it was a fit case, in which the delay should have been condoned and the matter should have been decided on merit. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submitted that the appeal was rightly dismissed, as the same was preferred after about nine months of delay. However, he could not answer as to how the proceeding could have continued before the Conciliation Board and thereafter final 5 order could have been passed by respondent no. 3 with regard to the lands, which were already excluded from the proceeding by respondent no. 3 himself earlier in the same proceeding. No counter affidavit also has been filed by respondent no. 4. State has filed counter affidavit, which has been sworn by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria, himself. Surprisingly, stand has been taken that though the Board was constituted for only 20½ decimal of land of the plot concerned, but during the inquiry it was found that 41 decimal of land was under Bataidari. However, the counter affidavit is silent on the point as to how the Conciliation Board could go beyond what had been referred to it by the Collector under the Act and also as to how that could have been done without issuing notice upon the purchaser, in whose favour the remaining 20½ decimal of land was excluded by the Collector under the Act vide annexure 3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am constrained to hold that the impugned order dated 14.03.2001 suffers from fatal error. The Conciliation Board itself was not competent to go beyond what was referred to it by the Collector under the Act for determination and 6 recording a finding. Admittedly, the lands purchased by the petitioner were expunged from the proceeding by order dated 20.07.2000(annexure 3) by respondent no. 3 himself. Still the Conciliation Board has considered those excluded lands and also recorded a finding that respondent no. 4 is Bataidar thereof without issuing notice upon the petitioner, which was in gross violation of the principle of Natural Justice. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria(the Collector under the Act) also acted illegally while recording the aforesaid finding of the Conciliation Board, inasmuch as that authority itself, who had earlier passed the order, as contained in annexure 3, excluding the land of the petitioner. He had also accepted the aforesaid finding/recommendation of the Board without issuing any notice upon the petitioner, whose lands were earlier excluded in the proceeding. Thus, this order is held to be bad in law and liable to be set aside having also been passed in violation of the principle of Natural Justice. By now, it is well settled that the authorities as well the courts should dispose of the matters, so far it is possible, on merit and not on technicality. The grounds 7 taken by the petitioner, according to this Court, were sufficient for condoning the delay before the appellate authority, as he had not been noticed and earlier, his lands were excluded. In view of that, the order dated 14.07.2004, as contained in annexure 1, suffers from error and is also liable to be set aside. Thus, I set aside the impugned orders, as contained in annexures 1 and 2. Since the matter relates to the rights of the parties, I deem it expedient to remit back the same to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria, respondent no. 3, to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties including the petitioner and taking into account the observations of this Court and the earlier order dated 20.07.2000 as contained in annexure 3, whereby lands purchased by the petitioner were excluded from the concerned proceeding. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)