1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8610 of 2009 Ganesh Lal Yadav, son of Brij Lal Yadav, village Chillhapar, PS Balrampur, district Katihar – petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Subdivisional Officer, Barsoi, district Katihar. 3. The Anchal Adhikari, Balrampur, district Katihar. 4. The Anchal Nirikshak, Balrampur, district Katihar. 5. The Halka Karamchari, Balrampur, district Karihar. 6. Sogan Yadav, 7. Logan Yadav, both sons of Late Aghori Yadav, village Chillhapar, PS Balrampur, district Katihar – respondents. 2 27.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This case relates to two plots situated in Mauza Sarifnagar. Revisional plot no. 448 appertaining to khata no. 89 was recorded in the name of Manglu Yadav. The petitioner’s father Brij Lal Yadav purchased the entire land by a registered sale deed in the year 1961 and has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The second plot of land appertains to khata no. 94 situate in Mauza Shadipur measuring .92 decimals and it is the khatiyani land of the petitioner’s ancestors and was recorded in the name of his grand father. After the death of Brij Lal Yadav, the petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records. The case of the petitioner is that Brij Lal Yadav died about fifteen years ago whereas Manglu Yadav alias Manglu Mandal died about twenty five years ago. A death certificate of Brij Lal Yadav, dated 28.1.1970 is at Annexure 5. Respondents 6 and 7 filed a case under section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act to be declared as under-raiyats of the land and the Subdivisional Officer, Barsoi as well 2 as the Circle Officer, Balrampur passed an order in favour of the respondents declaring them to be under-raiyats of the aforesaid land. In this case it is recorded in the order sheet that notices were sent to Manglu Yadav and Brij Lal Yadav. The notices are at pages 46, 51, 52 and 53 respectively of the writ petition which indeed show that notices were sent to the aforesaid persons. The postal peon apparently recorded that notices were not accepted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the postal peon appears to have been manufactured by the respondents, as if the postal peon had actually gone to serve notices to the aforesaid two dead persons i.e. Manglu Yadav and Brij Lal Yadav, then the postal peon would have mentioned that they were dead. This court is not issuing notices to respondents 6 and 7 in view of the fact that any proceeding without proper service of notice would have to be reconsidered by the authorities concerned and also because of the tenure of the order which is being passed in this writ petition. I accordingly direct that the petitioner should appear before the Circle Officer, Balrampur who will examine the records i.e. notices, the death certificate of Brij Lal Yadav and after hearing both the sides record the findings with respect to the fact whether notices were issued against dead persons and if the Circle Officer comes to a finding that notices were issued against the dead persons, he should pass a fresh order after hearing both the sides on merits of the case. It is expected that the Ist part of the order should be complied within 3 four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner would always be at liberty to challenge the order that may be passed by the Circle Officer with respect to proper service of notice and also assail the orders on merits as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 passed by the Subdivisional Officer and the Circle Officer. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)