IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17287 of 2010 MD.ISLAMUDDIN, son of Sk. Noor Mohammad, resident of village Muglaha Tola pothia, police station-Krityanand Nagar, district Purnia. …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Purnia 3. The Anchal Adhikari at Krityanand Nagar within the district of Purnia 4. Riyaz Khan 5. Siraz Khan 6. Samim Khan 7. Ilias Khan 8. Ibrahim Khan, respondent nos. 4 to 8 are sons of Late Sabit Khan resident of village Muglaha Tola Pothia, police station Krityanand Nagar, Purnia …Respondents For the petitioner :Mr. Arun Pd. Ambastha For the respondents-State :Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma For the respondents 4 to 8 :Mr. Indu Bhushan & :Dr.Bidhu Ranjan ----------- 04. 23.03.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 8. By order dated 25.02.2011, at the request of the counsel representing the private respondents, adjournment was granted to file counter affidavit. Said counter affidavit has not been filed. State has also not filed any counter affidavit. Petitioner is aggrieved by the revisional order dated 09.02.2010, passed by Respondent-Collector, Purnia in Revenue Revision No. 87/2005 (Md. Islamuddin vs. Riyaz Khan & Ors.). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that revisional court did not consider the matter in the light of the pleadings made in memo of revision wherein grant of Basgit 2 Purcha in terms of the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was challenged on diverse grounds. It is submitted that forcible possession by the Purcha holder on part of subject land was only one of the issues. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Purcha holder was having more than 08 acres of land which included homestead land as well. Reliance in this regard has been placed on (Annexure-2) which is record of rights maintained in the name of Sabit Khan and another. Let it be recorded that Sabit Khan is the father of private respondents 4 to 8. It is also contended that at least two reports with regard to actual physical possession of the land in question were submitted before the court in which conflicting findings with regard to possession were recorded. Learned counsel for private respondents 4 to 8 is not able to support the impugned order in view of submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the matter may be remitted to the revisional court for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both the party. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and in view of the agreement arrived at Bar, this Court quash the order dated 09.02.2010, passed by Respondent-Collector in Revenue Revision No. 87/2005 (Annexure-9) and remit the matter back to the said authority (respondent no.2) to consider and dispose of the same in 3 accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties. Let the petitioner and respondent nos. 4 to 8 appear before the said court within four weeks from today along with a copy of the present order whereafter Respondent-Collector shall fix a date and dispose of the said application/revision in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )