IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6317 of 2001 HARI PRASAD BHAGAT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. For the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 : M/S Dhirendra Kr. Jha, Jibendra Mishra, Advocates. ----------- 4. 08.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Private Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.2.1997 passed by the Circle Officer, Kadwa, Katihar, Annexure-1, whereunder private respondents have been granted the status of an occupancy raiyat in terms of the provisions contained in Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). They are further aggrieved by the appellate order dated 4.12.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi, Katihar, Annexure-2 whereunder the original order has been affirmed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that both the orders, Annexures-1 and 2 are violative of the provisions contained in Section 48D(3) of the Act as has been interpreted by this Court in a recent Judgment passed in the Case of Raghunath Pd. Singh & Anr. Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2007(3) PLJR 769 as thereunder having considered Sub- - 2 - Section(3) of Section-48D this Court has observed that an under raiyat in order to secure the right of an occupancy raiyat is required to pay 24 times of the produce, which the under raiyat is paying to the raiyat. While passing the two impugned orders, Annexures-1 and 2, the courts below have not taken into account such view and had only directed private respondents to pay 24 times of the rent paid by the raiyat to the State, which direction of the courts below is in variance with the judgment of this Court in the Case of Raghunath Pd. Singh & Anr. Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further assailed the aforesaid two orders, Annexures-1 and 2 on the ground that while passing the two orders the courts below did not even notice his objection that after the death of the father of the private respondents the land was taken by the petitioner himself for cultivation, which objection was sent to the Circle Officer through registered post and has been noticed in the order passed by the original court. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in support of such case petitioner was never given opportunity to examine his witnesses and file affidavit. 5. Counsel for the private respondents has opposed the aforesaid submission as according to him - 3 - petitioner having submitted his objection through registered post should have appeared and examined his witnesses but he never made any endeavour to examine the witnesses, as such, the submission made in the Court is wholly misconceived. 6. I regret to accept such submission. The petitioner having filed his objection through registered post, it was expected of the court below to have called upon the petitioner to examine the witnesses in support of his claim. Accordingly, while setting aside the two impugned orders dated 13.2.1997, Annexure-1 and 4.12.2000, Annexure-2, I direct the petitioner and the Private Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to appear before the Circle Officer, Kadwa, Respondent No.3 along with a certified copy of this order on 20.10.2008 when the Circle Officer shall fix a date and permit the parties to lead evidence in support of their claim and after considering the same pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 7. This writ application is, accordingly disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha,J.)