IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.8697 OF 2009 1. PINTU KUMAR @ PINTU KUMAR YADAV 2. VIKASH KUMAR YADAV BOTH SONS OF YUGAL YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KERAP TOLA HASANPUR, P.O. KERAP, P.S. RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT AURANGABAD VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE -CUM- COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD 4. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD 5. SANGEETA DEVI, WIFE OF SRI MAHESH YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KERAP, TOLA HASANPUR, P.O. KERAP, P.S. RAFIGANJ, DISTRICT AURANGABAD ………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******* 2 27/07/2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 25.09.2008 and 28.05.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya and Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Aurangabad. In this Case, the Court has not issued notice to Opposite Party No. 2 in view of the fact that no useful purpose would be served and the only purpose, if any, would be to delay the entire matter whereas the result of the case ultimately would have been the same. The petitioner purchased 15 decimals of land over plot no. 182, khata no. 378 in the village Kerab from Bishundeo Yadav and Dharamdeo Yadav. The Opposite Party filed application for pre-emption under Section 16 (3) (i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area - 2 - and Acquisition of the Surplus Land) Act before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Aurangabad stating that he is the boundary raiyat and the land in question is agricultural land and, therefore, he has right to get the land transferred in her favour. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector has rejected the application of the petitioner- pre-emptor. In appeal, the Collector allowed the pre- emption application and the Commissioner has dismissed the case for non-appearance of the Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was not heard by the Collector although the case of the petitioner has been noted and rejected by the Collector. As far as the order dated 25.09.2009 is concerned, it has been dismissed for non-appearance of the Counsel for the petitioner. It would be proper that the petitioner would be heard and the case be disposed of on merits. In the circumstances, I remand the matter to the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya who will issue notices to both the parties and fix a date for hearing. It is made clear that the petitioner will appear on the date fixed by the Commissioner and the Commissioner will not grant any unnecessary adjournment to delay the matter. The Commissioner may dispose of the case after - 3 - appearance of the respondents within a period of three months on receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )