IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3155 of 2000 1. KHAGENDRA PRASAD SAHA 2. SUBODH CHANDRA SAHA 3. BHUPENDRA PRASAD SAHA 4. BIRENDRA PRASAD SAHA ALL SONS OF LATE KESHAV LAL SAHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYA TOLA, NAWAB GANJ, P.S. FULKAHA, DISTRICT ARARIA. ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORBESGANJ (ARARIA) 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, NARPATGANJ, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 4. RAGHUNI PASWAN 5. SHIKAM LAL PASWAN @ KISHAN PASWAN, BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TOPE NAWABGANJ, P.S. FULKAHA, DISTRICT ARARIA. 6(i) JASWA NAND PASWAN 6(ii) GIRJA NAND PASWAN 6(iii) BINOD PASWAN 6(iv) SHANTI DEVI, ALL ARE SONS AND DAUGHTER OF DECEASED GARIB PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE WEST MADHURA, P.O. NAWABGANJ (FULKAHA), P.S. NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA. 7(i) SHIVA PASWAN, SON OF DECEASED MUSUK LAL PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NORTH MADHURA, P.O. NAWABGANJ (FULKAHA), P.S. NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA. ------ RESPONDENTS For the Petitioners : Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. G.P. Gupta, Advocate For Res. 4 and 5 : Mr. A. K. Mallick, Advocate For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate ----------- 8 8.9.2010 The father of the private respondents namely Ram Paswan, Son of Gulai Paswan had filed an application before the Munsif, Araria vide Miscellaneous Case No. 37 of 1956 in which he had stated that he was not interested in remaining Sikmidar of Khata No. 6 (old), Khesra No. 567. Subsequently, the sons of the Sikmidar filed an application under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act before the Anchaladhikari, Narpatganj. The Anchaladhikari, Narpatganj without issuing notice to the land holders has passed the order dated 2.7.1996 declaring that the sons 2 of the Sikmidar were in possession of the lands in question. The petitioners on hearing about the order passed by the Circle Officer moved the Sub-divisional Officer, who disposed of the application on the ground that the matter was earlier decided vide Case No. 154 of 1996-97. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Sub-divisional Officer did not consider that the order was passed ex-parte nor has he pursued the record of Case No. 154 of 1996- 97. The respondents had not produced certified copy of orders relating to the case aforesaid. It would appear from perusal of the two orders that the records of Case No. 154 of 1996-97 were not produced before the Sub-divisional Officer. Under the circumstances, this Court does not see how the Sub-divisional Officer could have decided the matter, without even looking to the alleged orders passed earlier in the case. The question that ought to have been decided is whether the sons of the Sikmidar have any rights, once their father had given up his rights under Section 86 of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In the result, I remit the matter back to the Circle Officer, Narpatganj to consider the cases of the respective parties, after giving notice to them, and pursuing the documents including the order of Case No. 37 of 1956. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)