IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6493 of 2011 1. KRISHNA MURARI SINGH S/O SRI MANGLA PRASAD SINGH R/O NARAYANPUR(DAFFI) B.H.U. VARANASI 2. SHIVA PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE KAPILDEO SINGH R/O C- 13/25, AURANGABAD, P.S. CHAITGANJ, DIST. VARANASI --- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR PATNA 2. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, KAIMUR, BHABHUA 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR ( CEILING) KAIMUR, BHABHUA -- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate For the State : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, G.P. 12 Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, A.C. to G.P. 12 ----------- 03 21.04.2011 In view of agreement at Bar, this matter is being disposed of at this stage itself. Heard. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking quashment of order dated 11.06.2007, passed by learned Collector, Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Misc. Ceiling Case no. 181 of 1993 (Annexure-11) rejecting the application preferred by them under Section 22 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act (for short the Act) as also the revisional order dated 22.11.2010. A prayer before the authority under the Act was made to declare the petitioners as sikmidars /occupancy raiyats in respect of the land details whereof have been set out in para 5 of the present writ case. Order went adverse to them. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners preferred revision before the Board of Revenue being Ceiling Revision case no. 26 of 2007. Although respondent Member Board of Revenue recorded the background fact leading to filing 2 of the present writ application but in the concluding para 11 it has been observed as under:- 11. Without going into the merit of the claim of the petitioners I am constrained to observe that non-appearance of the first party despite full knowledge and the plea made by the learned S.G.P. does not leave any option. The Court can not wait indefinitely as per the convenience of the petitioners and then again only to condone the delay and restore the cases repeatedly. This litigation has been continuing in the Board alone for about 17 years. The lack of any pairvi on behalf of the petitioners clearly demonstrates that the petitioners are more interested in passing time than concluding their case with arguments on merit. In the result the case nos. 26/2007 and 28/2007 are dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioners made diverse submissions to demonstrate that under what circumstance the petitioners could not appear on the date when the case was taken up by the learned Member, Board of Revenue. It is submitted that the petitioners be given an opportunity to argue the case on merit before the said respondent. Learned counsel for the State, has taken a fair stand in not objecting to the said submission of the petitioners. Accordingly, this Court disposes of the present application by the following order:- Let petitioners approach the respondent no.2 (Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna) along with a copy of the present order within a period of 04 weeks from today. The respondent Member, Board of Revenue shall fix a firm date for disposal of case no. 26 of 2007 which shall be utilized by the petitioners for 3 making their submissions. On hearing the parties the respondent Member, Board of Revenue shall dispose of the application afresh in accordance with law. The order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure- 13) passed by the respondent Member, Board of Revenue in Revision case no. 26 of 2007 shall not preclude him from passing a fresh order in accordance with law. The application stands disposed of. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)