IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.113 of 2003 1(A) RAJA RAM SINGH 1(B) BANSIDHAR SINGH, BOTH SONS OF LATE RAM BACHAN YADAV @ RAM BACHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MISHRAWALIA, P.O. KAMARPUR, P.S. BUXAR (M), DISTRICT BUXAR. 1(C) BAHETRI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF RAM BACHAN YADAV @ RAM BACHAN SINGH, WIFE OF RAM BADAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAGSAR, P.O. NAGSAR, P.S. DILDARNAGAR, DISTRICT GHAZIPUR (U.P.) 2. SHEO MUNI YADAV, SON OF SUKHI YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MISHRAWALIA, P.S. BUXAR, DISTRICT BUXAR. -------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BUXAR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BUXAR 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BUXAR 5. SHYAM BIHARI SINGH, SON OF RAM BACHAN SINGH @ RAM BACHAN SINGH YADAV DECEASED. 6. DADAN SINGH 7. LALAN SINGH, BOTH SONS OF SHEO BACHAN SINGH 8. JAI NATH SINGH, SON OF SHEO NATH SINGH 9. VIJAYEE SINGH, SON OF KISHORI SINGH 10.RADHA KISHUN SINGH, SON OF HALKHORI SINGH YADAV ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MISHRAWALIA, P.S. BUXAR, ANCHAL- BUXAR, DISTRICT BUXAR. ------------------------------------------------------------ RESPONDENTS ******** 7 2.8.2010 The petitioners had purchased by a registered sale deed dated 11.1.1974 seven decimals of land appertaining to Plot Nos. 316 and 320 of Khata No. 14. The petitioners have their residential house on part of Plot No. 316 and as such, they claim, that they by virtue of having their residential house on part of Plot No. 316 are adjoining raiyat to Plot No. 316 as well as 320. The pre-emption application filed on behalf of father of respondent nos. 5 to 10 was allowed by order dated 28.11.1983. The petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed on 7.10.1979 by the Additional Collector, 2 Buxar. The petitioners filed an application for restoration which was also dismissed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that counsel had died during the pendency of the case, thus they could not know about the dates fixed in the case. On enquiry the petitioners learnt that their case was dismissed for non-prosecution. They also came to know that their counsel had passed away. The petitioners engaged another counsel and filed an application for restoration before the Additional Collector which was dismissed by impugned order dated 7.10.1997 Normally it is the duty of the Court to issue notice to the parties if the counsel dies during the pendency of the case if the Court/Authority has knowledge of the factum of death of the counsel. As such, I find that the petitioners have made good grounds for restoration and the order contained in annexure-1 is bad for the reasons stated aforesaid. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioners should appear before the Collector with a copy of this order within a period of 3 three weeks and the Collector should revive Case Nos. 128 of 1983-84, 111 of 1988-89 and 85 of 1991-92. Fresh notices should be issued to the respondents, as nobody appears on their behalf, although there is a Vakalatnama filed in this case. This application is allowed for the reasons aforesaid. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)