IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16429 of 2009 1. BINOD PASWAN 2. JAI PRAKASH PASWAN, BOTH SONS OF SHIV SHANKAR PASWSAN, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE JHAUA, POLICE STATION KADWA, DISTRICT KATIHAR----PETITIONERS. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER, PURNEA DIVISION, PURNEA. 3. COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 4. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR LAND CEILING, KATIHAR. 5. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BARSOI, DISTRICT KATIHAR -----RESPONDDENTS 1ST SET. 6. LALITA DEVI, WIFE OF PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA. 7. BIMLA DEVI, WIFE OF CHANDR KISHORE SHARMA, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BISHANPUR, POLICE STATION KADWA, DISTRICT KATIHAR ---RESPONDENTS 2ND SET. ----------- 02. 27.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2009 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, Annexure-4, whereunder his application to restore Ceiling Revision Case No.12 of 2008-09 has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they had filed Pre-emption Case No.05 of 2000-01 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Barsoi arising out of sale deed dated 6.9.2000, Annexure-2 executed by Lalita Devi in favour of Bimla Devi and the application was allowed under orders dated 26.9.2001 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Barsoi, which is contained in Annexure-3 to this application. Bimla Devi filed appeal against the said order before the learned Collector, Katihar, who set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Barsoi under orders dated 11.7.2008, against which Ceiling Revision Case No.12 of 2008-09 was filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner. Learned Divisional Commissioner issued notice to respondent no.7, Bimla Devi but the - 2 - notice could not be served on the address indicated in the impugned sale deed. The Divisional Commissioner thereafter under order dated 26.11.2008 called upon the petitioner to furnish the present and correct address of respondent no.7. Petitioner could not comply such direction in spite of indulgence granted under orders dated 10.12.2008 and 24.12.2008. Learned Commissioner thereafter under order dated 7.1.2009 dismissed the revision application for failure of the petitioner to furnish the address of respondent no.7. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that before dismissing the revision case for failure to furnish the correct and present address of Bimla Devi, the learned Divisional Commissioner ought to have given further opportunity to the petitioner to furnish the correct and present address of Bimla Devi and should have considered the matter on merit. As the revision case has been dismissed not on merit but on the ground of failure to furnish the address of respondent no.7, I set aside the orders dated 21.1.2009 and 7.1.2009 passed in Ceiling Case No.12 of 2008-09, Annexure-4 and direct the petitioners to furnish the present and correct address of Bimla Devi before the Divisional Commissioner by filing affidavit within three months from today and thereafter the Divisional Commissioner should issue notice to both the parties and after hearing the matter afresh on merit pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)