IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.2073 of 2008 1. Bijendra Singh, S/O late Rajendra Singh 2. Lal Babu Singh, W/O late Rajendra Singh 3. Biswanath Singh, S/O late Suraj Singh 4. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, S/O Sri Biswanath Singh All residents of village Kachna, P.O. Batna, P.S. Barsoi, district Katihar .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Barsoi, At & P.O. Barsoi, district Katihar 3. The Circle Officer, Barsoi, Barsoi Block, At & P.O. Barsoi, district Katihar 4. Kunwar Singh, S/O late Kamta Singh 5. Bipin Singh, S/O late Amar Singh, S/O late Kamta Singh Both (respondents 4 and 5) are residents of village Kachna, P.O. Batna, P.S. Barsoi, district Katihar 6. Abdul Mazid, S/O late Patanu Mohamad, resident of village Mohdipokhar, P.O. Bighour Hat, P.S. Barsoi, district Katihar .. Respondents **** /2/ 26.03.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 26.10.2004, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Barsoi, Katihar, in B.T. Case No. 18 of 2003-2004, whereby respondent no. 4 has been declared as under raiyat upon the lands of mauza Bidhaur Hat, khata no. 533, plots no. 1048, 1049, 1050, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045 and 1046 in total 2 an area of 3.80(1/2 ) acres, Petitioners’ case is that earlier case was filed under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy At, 1885, in between the same parties which was dropped in terms of compromise order, dated 09.08.2000. Again, for same plots of land, in between the same parties, B.T. Case No. 18 of 2003-2004 has been filed and bataidari right of respondent no. 4 declared. Compromise petition has been annexed with the writ application which shows that in terms of compromise the respondent was required to purchase the land which was the subject matter of proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy At, 1885. The compromise petition only indicates that respondent was in cultivating possession of the land and the land holder was agreeable to transfer this land in favour of respondent on payment of consideration money. The respondent instead of purchasing the land, in question, has filed an application for declaration of his bataidari right under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy At, 1885. This can not be a ground for quashing the impugned order. Another ground which has been taken by the petitioner for challenging the impugned order in that entire proceeding was conducted ex prate as he has not 3 participated in the proceeding. 3. On perusal of the order sheet, I find that proper notice was issued to the petitioners through registered post and the service report was on record. In spite of due notice petitioners did not choose to appear and participate in the proceeding. For this reason the contention of the petitioner that ex parte proceeding was conducted can not be entertained. 4. Accordingly, I do not find any apparent error in the order. 5. This application is dismissed. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )