IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5531 of 2002 PARMILA DEVI, W/O- RAMDARASH PRASAD, R/O- VILLAGE – SHITAL BHAKURAHAR, POST OFFICE MANI BHAKURAHAR, POLICE STATION SARAI, DISTRICT HAJIPUR, VAISHALI. - Versus- 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS HAJIPUR 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, LALGANJ 5. RAMA SHANKAR PRASAD SINGH, S/O- LATE MAHENDRA SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE SHITAL BHAKURAHA, POST OFFICE MANI BHAKURAHA, POLICE STATION SARAI, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 6. RAM DARASH PRASAD SINGH, S/O- LATE MAHENDRA SINGH, R/O- VILLAGE SHITAL BHAKURAHA, P.O. MANI BHAKURAHA, P.S. SARAI, DISTRICT- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR ----------- 3. 22.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 6 despite service of notice, has not appeared. The petitioner challenges the order dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure-7) passed by the Collector, Vaishali at Hajipur (respondent no. 2) in Mutation Revision Case No. 64 of 1999-2000 whereby he set aside the order dated 02.09.1999 (Annexure-6) passed by the L.R.D.C., Hajipur (respondent no.3) dismissing the appeal against the order dated 27.04.1998 (Annexure-5) by the Anchal Adhikari, Lalganj (respondent no. 4) allowing the mutation of the land in question in favour of the petitioner. - 2 - It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impunged order dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure-7) is passed in a cryptic manner without even considering the documents on the record and assigning the reasons for setting aside the order contained in Annexures-5 & 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the impunged order was passed after hearing the petitioner. Upon considering the submissions and the averments made in the writ application as also the orders contained in Annexures-5, 6 and 7, it would appear that by impunged order dated 28.08.2001 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent no. 2 while setting aside the orders contained in Annexures-5 and 6, the respondent No.2 neither consider the materials on the record nor did assign any reason for setting aside the orders allowing Mutation in favour of the petitioner as per order dated 27.04.1998 vide annexure-5 and also the order dated 2.09.1999 (Annexure-6) dismissing the appeal against the order allowing the mutation in favour of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the order dated 28.08.2001 as contained in Annexure-7, cannot be sustained in law. The same is accordingly, quashed. In result, the application is allowed. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J)