IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7550 of 2005 1. BAIJNATH PASWAN 2. SUNIL PASWAN 3. UMESH PASWAN, ALL ARE SONS OF LATE MISHRI PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PANRO, P.S. LAXIPUR(BHAHHAT) DISTRICT-JAMUI …PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA THROUGH ITS MEMBER 2(A) THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER OF BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, JAMUI 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, JAMUI 5. THE D.C.L.R., JAMUI 6. MAHESH MANDAL 7. LAXMAN MANDAL …RESPONDENTS 1ST SET 8. DINESH MANDAL, ALL ARE SONS OF LATE SUDAMA MANDAL, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-PANRO, P.S. LAXMIPUR BARHAT), DISTICT-JAMUI …RESPONDENTS (2ND SET) …RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners :Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the State :Mr.Rajeev Kumar For respondent no.6 to 8:Mr. Prakash Mahto ----------- 03. 31.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, state and private respondents. Petitioners are the pre-emptor. They are aggrieved by the Resolution dated 21.04.2005 (Annexure-7), passed by Respondent, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 48/2005 whereby revision application has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ application in a nutshell are as follows: Mother of respondents 6 to 8 purchased 12 decimals of lands (details whereof are set out in paragraph 4 of the writ 2 petition) by two sale deeds dated 24.06.1986 and 25.06.1986. Father of the writ petitioners filed two applications under section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms(fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) claiming himself to be adjoining raiyat of the vended land(s) under the two sale deeds. This gave rise to Case Nos. 4/88-89 and 5/88-89. Respondent-DCLR by a common order dated 02.06.1989 (Annexure-2), allowed the claim. The mother of the respondent filed appeal vide Pre- emption Appeal No. 38/89-90 which, after appearance of the parties, stood dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 10.04.1990 (Annexure-4). It appears that thereafter the matter remained pending and the petitioners moved the Respondent- DCLR Jamui for implementation of the order whereafter a notice dated 15.06.2001 (Annexure-5) was issued to respondents 5 to 8(purchasers). In response thereto, the purchasers appeared and brought on record the order of the appellate court passed in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 21/93-94 whereafter the said petition filed by the petitioners for implementation of the order dated 02.06.1989 was rejected by a proceeding dated 13.08.2002(Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents). The petitioners thereafter moved the Board of Revenue assailing the order dated 02.12.1995, passed by the Respondent-Addl. Collector on Appeal No.21/93-94 which was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. After having heard the parties and perusing the 3 materials on record, the application, in my view, is bound to succeed on a very short issue/point. Original appeal preferred by the mother of the purchasers (respondents 6 to 8) being Appeal No. 38/89-90 stood dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.04.1990. According to the respondents, an application for restoration thereof was filed which was numbered as separate appeal vide Ceiling Appeal No.21/93-94 and disposed of by order dated 02.12.1995. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the said order dated 02.12.1995, in the light of the pleadings on record, submits that the appellate authority did not issue any notice about the pendency of the appeal and, as such, the same was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, particularly those made in paragraph 7 whereof, it appears that the respondents have not denied the aforesaid pleadings of the petitioners. Bare perusal of the order as contained in Annexure-6 would show that the respondent thereto was not heard. An order which is passed without issuing notice to the affected party or to the respondents whose claim was allowed by the Respondent-DCLR would be violation of the Provisions of the Act as also the principles of natural justice and, therefore, a nullity in the eye of law. Accordingly, revisional order dated 21.04.2006 contained in Annexure-7 and appellate order dated 02.12.1995 contained in Annexure-6 are quashed and set aside. The matter 4 goes on remand to the Addl. Collector, Jamui for a fresh hearing and disposal of the said appeal being Ceiling Appeal No. 21/93- 94 after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Learned counsel for the parties state that they would appear before the said authority within four weeks along with a copy of this order whereafter the respondent-appellate authority shall fix a date and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )