IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9535 of 2010 1. SAURABH YADAV MINOR SON OF SHREE RAM YADAV REPRESENTED THROUGH NATURAL FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF SHREE RAM YADAV, R/O VILL.- MAJROHI, P.S. AND P.O.- PIRPAINTY, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR ---- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 4. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 5. L.R.D.C., KAHALGAON, BHAGALPUR 6. BIJAY KUMAR YADAV S/O LATE RAJA NARAIN YADAV R/O MAJROHI, P.S. AND P.O.- PIRPAINTY, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 7. KEDAR MANDAL S/O LATE SAHADEO MANDAL R/O VILL.- MAJROHI, P.S.-P.O.- PIRPAINTY, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 8. KRIPA NATH MANDAL S/O KEDAR MANDAL R/O VILL.- MAJROHI, P.S.-P.O.- PIRPAINTY, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR 9. SHAILENDAR NATH S/O LATE JITENDRA NATH PANDEY R/O VILL.- MAJROHI, P.S.-P.O.- PIRPAINTY, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR ---- Respondents ----------- 2 25.6.2010 The only point raised on behalf of the petitioner is that after hearing application of the petitioner the Member, Board of Revenue remanded the matter to the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur on 3 points which are as to whether the petitioner was a land less person? That a local enquiry should have been made before passing the order and whether the vendee belongs to minority community? The matter was heard by the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur. The Additional Collector, Bhagalpur passed a reasoned order with respect to the three issues raised by the Member, Board of Revenue and referred the matter to the Collector. The Collector issued notice to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Collector. The only point raised in this case is that the matter should have been decided by the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur and not by the Collector. As far as this aspect is concerned, I see no merit in the contention, as the Collector had the 2 opportunity to peruse the earlier order of the Additional Collector. From the order impugned i.e. dated 31.10.2005 and the order dated 29.3.2010 it appears that both the Additional Collector and Collector have passed orders with respect to the merits of the case. The petitioner has not challenged the order passed on 29.3.2010 before the Commissioner of the division. The petitioner is being given liberty to challenge the order dated 29.3.2010 before the Commissioner of the division to consider the case on merits, as well sympathetically consider the limitation application in view of the fact that the petitioner has been pursuing legal remedies before this Court. I may point out that I have not passed any orders with respect to the merits or otherwise of the case. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)