IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8378 of 2002 1.NARAYAN SAH 2.VIJAY KUMAR SAH, BOTH SONS OF LATE BIDHICHAND SAH, BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BATORHA, POLICE STATION KURSA KANTA, DISTRICT ARARIA ------PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, ARARIA. 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS OFFICER, ARARIA. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KURSA KANTA, ARARIA. 5. BHUTAI SAH, SON OF LATE GOBARDHAN SAH. 6. DHURI LAL SAH, SON OF LATE NAKCHHEDI SAH. BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARASI, TOLA KAKURWAHA, P.S. KURSA KANTA, DISTRICT PURNEA -------RESPONDENTS ----------- 3. 19.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents no.5 and 6 as also the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30th of April, 2002 passed by the Collector, Araria (respondent no.2) in Mutation Revision No.30 of 1996-97, as contained in Annexure 4. By the impugned order, the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Kursa Kanta, Araria (respondent no.4) as well as the order passed on appeal by the DCLR, Araria (respondent no.3) was set aside with a direction to the Circle Officer, Kursa Kanta, Araria (respondent no.4) that the rent should be recovered in respect of Khata No.89 having an area of 28.63 acres and odd from the persons 2 who are in actual possession prior to the order passed by the consolidation authorities. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the rent should be recovered from the persons who are in actual possession of the land in question prior to the order passed by the consolidation authorities. The respondent-Collector, Araria (respondent no.2) ought to have clarified the said possession and as such the direction is vague. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.5 and 6 submits that as per the direction of respondent no.2, whoever was in actual possession of the land was liable to pay the rent and, as such, the order is not vague, as submitted by the petitioners. Considering the submissions of the parties, in my opinion, the respondent no.2 ought to have directed the Circle Officer to make an enquiry, including the local inspection as also the relevant reports with regard to the possession over the land. In this view of the matter, respondent no.2-the Collecor, Araria is directed to pass a fresh order with regard to 3 the recovery of the land rent. The order dated 30th of April, 2002, as contained in Annexure 4, is partly quashed to the extent indicated above. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)