IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10919 of 2008 SATYANARAYAN PRASAD, Son of Late Kesho Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Narha, P. O. Kishanpur, P.S. Sahiyara, District- Sitamarhi ----------------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Sitamarhi 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sitamarhi (Sadar) 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reform. Sitamarhi (Sadaer) 5. The Circle Officer, Baithnaha, Sitamarhi 6. Amiri Baitha Son of Siv Prasad Baitha 7. Sitaram Baitha Son of Sonafi Baitha 8. Kishori Baitha Son of Asharfi Baitha 9. Ramdeo Baitha Son of Jamuni Baitha Respondent no. 6 to 9 resident Village- Thotharaha, P.O.- Kishanpur, P.S.- Sahiyara, District- Sitamarhi 10. Smt. Shakuntla Thakur Wife of Wachaspati Thakur resident of Village- Parsauni, Tole- Barha, P.S.- Banipatti, District- Madhubani. --------------------Respondents. ----------- 2. 11.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 19.01.1998 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reform, Sitamarhi in Bataidari Case No. 187/92-93, declaring the Respondents as bataidar of lands under dispute. Petitioner’s case is that the impugned order was passed without impleading him as party, as such the order is bad. It has also been stated that since the Bataidari case was decided without impleading the petitioner as party, as such he is not required to approach the appellate authority, against the impugned order, declaring private respondent as bataidar. I find that the Bataidari case was initiated in the year 1992-93. The petitioner has purchased the land through two sale - 2 - deeds executed on 18.5.95 and 27.5.1995. The petitioner was not a necessary party at the relevant time when the proceeding was initiated. Notices were issued to the vendor of the petitioner but he chose not to appear despite service of notice on him. Accordingly the petitioner, if aggrieved by the impugned order may approach the appellate authority by preferring an appeal under Section 48F of the Bihar Tenancy Act, along with the limitation petition with a prayer to condone the delay. If the Court is satisfied that the reasons assigned is satisfactory, may condone the delay and decide the case on merit. This application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Mridula Mishra, J.)