IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6585 of 2006 1. KAMTA SINGH SON OF LATE RAMOTAR SINGH 2. OM PRAKASH SON OF KAMTA SINGH 3. KIRTI KUMARI 4. KANCHAN KUMARI @ KUSUM SINGH, BOTH DAUGHTER OF KAMTA SINGH, ALL RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NORTH LAKHIBAGH, P.S. MUFASIL, DIST. GAYA. 5. SMT. KOMAL KUMARI WIFE OF RANJAN KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RUKANPURA, P.S. KHUSROPUR, DIST. PATNA. 6. KANAK KUMARI WIFE OF OM PRAKASH SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA PUNAICHAK P.S. SHASTRINAGAR, DISTRICT PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT SURVEY SETTLEMENT, GAYA. 3. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT SURVEY SETTLEMENT, GAYA. 4. SHARDA DEVI WIFE OF MOTI PATWA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA NARAIN CHUWAN MANGLA GAURI, GAYA, P.S. CIVIL LINES DIST. GAYA. For the petitioners : M/s Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, R.K. Pathak, Advocates. For the State : SC-3. ----------- 02. 28.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.1999 passed by the Superintendent, Survey Settlement, Gaya in Appeal Case No.821 of 1991, Annexure-4, whereunder appeal has been allowed ex parte setting aside the order dated 9.1.1991 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gaya in Objection Case No.95 of 1988, Annexure-3/1. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that order dated 26.5.1999 was passed ex parte without actual service of notice on the petitioners. It is further submitted that from perusal of order dated 26.5.1999, itself it would appear that registered cover was returned without service of notice on the petitioners. 2 This writ petition has remained pending before this Court for about four years and to verify the submission that notice issued to the petitioner was returned unserved if notice is issued to the private respondent disposal of the writ case is likely to take some more time. 4. In the circumstances, it is deem expedient to direct the petitioners to approach the Superintendent, Survey Settlement, Gaya, respondent no.2, who should verify from the order sheet as also the service report about the factum of service of notice of Appeal Case No.821 of 1991 on the petitioner and if he is satisfied that there was no actual service of notice of Appeal Case No.821 of 1991 on the petitioners, he should issue notice to Sharda Devi, respondent no.4 and after her appearance in the matter hear Appeal Case No.821 of 1991 on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It goes without saying that order dated 26.5.1999 passed in Appeal Case No.821 of 1991 shall be subject to the further order which the Superintendent, Survey Settlement, Gaya shall pass in compliance of this order. Necessary exercise in compliance of this order be made by the Superintendent, Survey Settlement, Gaya, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)