IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.817 of 2010 in CWJC No. 7987 of 2008 ========================================= SHIV CHANDRA PANDEY, S/o Late Lal Bachan Pandey, resident of Village – Karanpura, PS Chenari, District Rohtas…Respondent no.7 …Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Circle Officer, Chenari, District – Rohtas at Sasaram 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, District Rohtas at Sasaram 4. The DCLR, Sasaram, District Rohtas at Sasaram 5. The Additional District Magistrate, District Rohtas at Sasaram 6. The District Magistrate, District Rohtas at Sasaram 7. Shri Ram Chandra Pandey, S/o Late Lal Bachan Pandey, resident of Village – Karanpura, PS Chenari, District Rohtas….Petitioner - Respondents ----------- Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava,Advocate For Respondents no. 1 to 6 : Ms. Namrata Mishra Govt. Pleader IX For Respondent no.7 : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, Advocate ================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONONURABLE MR. JUSTICE S K KATRIAR ORAL ORDER (Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 03- 21/7/2010 I A No. 4366 of 2010 This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 303 days occurred in filing the above Letters Patent Appeal. It is the case of the appellant that though he was a party to the writ 2 petition, no notice of hearing was issued to him. He was unaware of the impugned order dated 1st May, 2009, made on the writ petition. Therefore, the delay. With the consent of the parties, the delay is condoned. The interlocutory application stands disposed of. LPA No. 817 of 2010 The appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 1st May, 2009, passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 7987 of 2008, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Respondent no.7 herein, the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge, is an ex-army man. By the impugned order the learned single Judge has directed the State Government “to issue settlement, parcha in favour of the petitioner, showing settlement of land appertaining to khata no.106, plot no.37, thana no.456, measuring 0.04 acres within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.” Learned Advocate Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava appears for the appellant. He submits that the land in question is ancestral property of the father of the appellant and respondent no.7.In other words, the appellant also has a share in the said land. Though the appellant was a party in the writ proceeding, the impugned order was made ex-parte against the appellant. It is not in dispute that the impugned order has been 3 made ex-parte against the appellant. For the above reason, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 1st May, 2009 passed in CWJC No.7987 of 2008 is set aside. CWJC No.7987 of 2008 is remitted to the learned single Judge for hearing and decision afresh after hearing all the parties including the appellant herein. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant states that he shall file Vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant- respondent no.7 within one week from today. ( R M Doshit, CJ.) ( S K Katriar,J. ) mrl