IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10901 of 2001 RAM PRAVESH SHARMA, SON OF FAKIRA SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LODIPUR, POLICE STATION - MEHANDIA,DISTRICT JEHANABAD ---------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, JEHANABAD. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ARWAL, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, ARWAL, NOW KALER, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. 5. NAVLESH KUMAR PANDIT SON OF GIRIDHAR PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LODIPUR, POLICE STATION MEHANDIA, DISTRICT JEHANABAD ----------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Ram Kumar Sharma, Senior Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Anwar Kari, J.C. to S.C. V For Respondent no.5: Mr Manoj Kumar Sinha 5. 27.1.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent no.5 as well as the State. The petitioner challenges the order dated 11.6.2001 passed by the Collector, Jehanabad (respondent no.2) as also the order dated 14.7.2001, as contained in Annexure 1, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 20th of April, 1992 in Basgit Parcha Case No.3/92-93 passed by the Anchala Adhikari, as contained in Annexure 3, has been dismissed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order, as contained in Annexure 3, is absolutely illegal and not sustainable in law for the reason that the aforesaid order was passed without issuing notice to the petitioner, who was admittedly the 2 landlord and as such, without notice to the petitioner, the order, as contained in Annexure 3, could not have been passed. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default. It is further submitted that the appeal of the petitioner could not have been dismissed for the reason that by order dated 24.3.2001, respondent no.2 had directed for local inspection, which shall be done in presence of both the parties. The petitioner remained waited for the visit of the officials concerned for making local inspection. However, no one has turned up to make the local inspection. On enquiry made by the Advocate of the petitioner in the court below, it was learnt that the local inspection shall be made after the Panchayat election was over, however, even then no one turned up to make local inspection. In the above circumstances, the petitioner had nothing to do in the appeal and the appeal was dismissed for default. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, there is no default as the petitioner was required to remain present at the local inspection, which was not carried out in terms of the order dated 24th of March, 2001 passed by respondent no.2. The restoration application filed by the petitioner, as contained in Annexure 5, was equally not considered with due application of mind and the same was dismissed without assigning any reason. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the petitioner himself left pursuing the appeal and as such, the same was dismissed by order dated 11.6.2001. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions of the parties as also the averments made in 3 the writ application, in my opinion, the appeal of the petitioner should have been considered on merits and disposed of in accordance with law after considering the report submitted after making the local inspection as directed to be done by respondent no.2 as per his order dated 24.3.2001 as it would appear from paragraph 13 of the petition that no local inspection was made and no report was submitted pursuant to the order passed by respondent no.4 and as such, in the above circumstances, the appeal could not have been dismissed for default. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the order contained in Annexure 1, cannot be sustained in law and the same is, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties and considering the materials available on record. The appeal shall be disposed of considering all the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)