IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4439 of 2002 1. Sakaldeo Ram, son of late Ram Briksha Ram. 2. Lakhan Ram, son of late Ram Briksh Ram. 3. Bujhawan Mahara, son of Late Bhuneshwar Mahra. All resident of village-Kasturia, Police Station-Tariani, District- Sheohar. …………………………………..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary/Commissioner, Department of Revenue, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Sheohar. 3. The Circle Officer, Belsand, District-Sitamarhi. 4. The Circle Officer- Tariani, District-Sheohar. 5. Rudal Ram, son of Late Manu Ram. 6. Ram Ekbal Ram, son of Rudal Ram. 7. Sonafi Ram, son of Late Jagdish Ram. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are the resident of Village-Kasturia, Police Station-Tariani, District-Sheohar. …..Respondents. ----------- 4. 21. 01. 09. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Despite service of notice issued on Respondent Nos. 5 to 7, they did not appear in the case. The petitioners challenge the order dated 28. 9. 2001 passed by Respondent No. 2, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioners on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2 while holding that appeal can not be entertained on the ground of delay, he did not consider the fact that the petitioner had no knowledge about the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari on 8.10.1968/31.10.1968, as contained in Annexure-2, Respondent No. 2 failed to appreciate that the said order as contained in Annexure-2, the petitioner could be learn only when the Respondents started troubling the petitioners and attempt was made to dispossess from his land in question in the year 2000, - 2 - after Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 purchased the land from Petitioner No.3 whereas Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 purchased the land from Respondent No. 7 on 9. 3. 2000, and as such in the circumstances, petitioners had no occasion to know about the order contained in Annexure-2. It is submitted that Respondent No. 2, ought to have accepted the appeal and dispose of the same on merit considering the materials on record. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there was no justification on the part of the petitioners to file an appeal after such a long delay. In reply, it is submitted that since no knowledge about the order passed as contained in Annexure-2 and therefore, the petitioners had no occasion to know the order to enable the challenge the same earlier. Upon considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the averments made in the petition as well as order contained in Annexure-2, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice that the matter is considered afresh by the Respondent No.2, in accordance with law after considering the question of limitation. In view of the matter, order dated 28. 9. 2001, as contained in Annexure-6, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No. 2 for passing a fresh order after hearing the concerned parties preferably within the period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the present order. - 3 - With the above observations, this writ application is accordingly disposed of. m.p. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)