IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6543 of 2010 SURENDRA RAJAK, S/O BISHUNDEO RAJAK, R/O VILLAGE- GANGAULI, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR. 2. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BIBHUTIPUR,DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 3. SRI PRADEEP NARAYAN SINGH, S/O LATE BALESHWAR NARAIN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- DAHAUR, P.S.- BARH, DISTRICT-PATNA. 4. ALAHA YADAV, S/O GENA YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- GANGAULI, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 5. MAUJI YADAV, S/O ALAHA YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- GANGAULI, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 6. RAM PRAKASH MAHTO, S/O RAM SARAN MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- GANGAULI, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. 7. UCHIT BAITHA, S/O BADLU BAITHA, R/O VILLAGE- GANGAULI, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 8. DINESH MAHTO, S/O SUKHDEO MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- GANGAULI, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 9. MOHAN MAHTO, S/O RAM LAGAN MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE- GANGAULI, P.S.- BIBHUTIPUR, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ----------- 02. 19.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the purchaser of the lands in question from respondent second party Sri Pradeep Narayan Singh. He is aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2004 passed in Case No.23 of 2003-04/25.9.2006, Annexure-4, whereunder the Circle Officer, Bibhutipur has granted purcha of the lands in question in favour of private respondent nos.4 to 9 in terms of the provisions contained in the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that without notice to the petitioner or his vendor respondent no.3 the order dated 23.3.2004, Annexure-4 has been passed, as such, the aforesaid order is violative of the provisions contained in the Act as private respondent nos.4 to 9 are neither privileged person nor privileged tenant as there is no special contract between the petitioner his vendor and private respondent nos.4 to 9 and unless there is special contract between the petitioner or his vendor and the private respondent nos.4 to 9 they cannot be declared as privileged - 2 - tenant. Such aspect of the matter could have been appreciated by the Circle Officer, Bibhutipur provided he issued notice either to the petitioner or to his vendor respondent no.3. Since the Circle Officer did not issue any notice he could not examine the matter in the light of the provisions of the Act and the order dated 23.3.2004, Annexure-4 appears to be wholly without jurisdiction as the same has been passed without hearing the petitioner or his vendor, respondent no.3. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I dispose of the writ application with direction to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 23.3.2004, Annexure-4 by filing appeal before the Collector, Samastipur in terms of the provisions contained in Section-21 of the Act and the Collector after notice to private respondent nos. 4 to 9 should consider the matter in the light of the provisions contained in Section-2(i)(j) of the Act as also the provisions of Rule-5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rule, 1948 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the memo of appeal along with a copy of this order before him. It goes without saying if the appeal of the petitioner is allowed, status quo ante over the lands in question be restored. While passing the appellate order learned Collector shall look into the findings recorded by this court under orders dated 31.1.2006, Annexure-3 Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)