IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15043 of 2007 1. Md. Hasim, 2. Md. Nizam, Both sons of Md. Tahir, resident of village- Khaira Garhiya, P.S. Narpatganj, Distt. Arariya. ..... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Circle Officer, Narpatganj. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Farbisganj, Distt. Arariya. 4. Md. Mojibuddin, 5. Md. Abdul Mazid. 6. Md. Kashim All sons of Late Bipat Ali. 7. Md. Jubair, 8. Md. Subair, Both sons of Late Karim. 9. Md. Alauddin 10. Md. Qutubuddin Both sons of Sifat Ali. 11. Md. Samim, 12. Md. Raish 13. Md. Nasim. All sons of Abdul Rahman. All resident of village- Khaira Garahiya, P.S. Narpatganj, Distt. Arariya. 14.Harihar Bayawala, S/o Late Hazarimal Bayanwala resident of Farbisganj, P.S. farbisganj, Distt. Araria. 15. Ashok Kumar Bayanwala, S/o Sri Ram Kumar Bayanwala, resident of 96, Swastik Society, Navrangpura, Ahemadabad, Distt- Ahemadabad. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 3.3.2009 Heard Mr. Amrendra Kumar Sinha No.1 for the petitioners, and Mr. Satyadeo Kumar, learned Standing Counsel No.12. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to correct the typographical errors in paragraph no.1 of this writ petition. 2 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. It arises out of proceedings under Section-48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), and is with respect to Plot no.1482, appertaining to Khata No.872, and Plot no.772, appertaining to Khata no.109, covering an area of 4.57 acres, situate at Mauza- Khaira, Thana no.216, district Arariya. Ram Kumar Byanwala, alias Ram Kumar Lal, father of respondent no.15 is the original land owner and the petitioners are purchasers from Ram Kumar Bayanwala by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 8.11.2006. Respondent no.4 filed an application under the provisions of Section-48D of the Act before respondent no.2, claiming bataidari rights with respect to the lands in question. The same was allowed by order dated 7.11.2006 (Annexure-2), passed by respondent no.2, in Case No.223 of 1992-93/4A of 2006-07, and the bataidari rights claimed by respondent no.4 were upheld. The petitioners purchased the lands in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 8.11.2006, from the father of respondent no.15. The petitioners preferred appeal which has been rejected by respondent no.3, by the impugned order dated 13.4.2007 (Annexure-3), passed in 3 Appeal Case No.5 of 2006-07 (Md. Hasim and others Vs. Md. Mojibuddin and others), wherein it has been held that the appellants (petitioners herein) were not party before the learned first authority. He has also considered the matter on merits and has come to the conclusion that respondent no.4, the Sikmidar, is in possession of the lands in question for quite some time. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the grievance raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had the right to maintain appeal because they were purchasers from the original landlord by a registered deed of absolute sale. They could not have been parties in the proceedings before the learned first authority because the registered document was registered after respondent no.2 had passed the order. However, this becomes rather a technical plea in the present situation because the learned appellate authority has considered the matter on merits and has rejected the appeal. We, therefore, do not propose to interfere with the impugned order. 4 4. There is another aspect of the matter which must be considered. Respondent no.2 has observed as follows in the concluding portion of the order dated 7.11.2006 (Annexure-2), which relates to calculation of the amount of compensation: vkosndx.k dks vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd yxku dk pkSchl xq.kk 50.00 (ipkl) X 24= 1200-00 (,d gtkj nks lkS) #0 eqvkotk ds #i esa vapy ukftj ds ikl tek dj ukftj jlhn izkIr djsa rFkk vapy ukftj dks vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd izkIr eqvkotk dh jkf’k mfpr igpku ij [kkrsnkj dks Hkqxrku djsa@ rn~uqlkj ’kqf}&i= fuxZr djsa@ The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before respondent no.2 in an effort to satisfy him that they are purchasers from the original land owner by a registered document in which case they shall be entitled to the amount of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% from the appropriate date. In view of the direction that respondent no.2 shall make a fresh calculation, the order dated 7.11.2006 is accordingly modified. 5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 5