IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2504 of 2001 BRAJ NANDAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with MJC No.288 of 2008 BRAJ NANDAN SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioner :M/s Ram Balak Mahto, Sr. Advocate, Markandeya Singh, Syed Wazir Ali and Kumar Rajeev, Advocates For the State :M/s Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, S.C.5 & Anwar Karim, JC to S.C.5 For the Respondent no.6: M/s Naresh Chandra Verma & Arun Kumar Lal, Advocates 06/ 03.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also the counsel for private Respondent no.6. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.2.2001, Annexure-5, whereunder Collector of the District has set aside the order dated 6.4.1998, Annexure-2, whereunder both, the petitioner and the private Respondent no.6 were allowed different days in a week to hold Hat on their respective raiyati lands. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur under orders dated 24.1.1998 considered and allowed the request of private Respondent no.6 to hold Hat on different days in a week over his raiyati land in terms of the provisions contained Sub-section (4) of Section 23 of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Petitioner’s request for holding Hat over his raiyati land was considered under the same provision and allowed under order 2 dated 29.1.1998. He was also allowed different days during the week for such purpose. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hajipur, later appreciated that he has passed two contradictory orders dated 24.1.1998 and 29.1.1998, issued notice to both, the petitioner and the private Respondent no.6 and after hearing them, passed order dated 6.4.1998, Annexure-2 giving different days in a week to them to hold Hat including cattle fair over their respective raiyati land. Private Respondent no.6 challenged the order dated 29.1.1998, which stood cancelled in terms of order dated 6.4.1998 by filing Misc. Case No. 27 of 1998 before the Collector of the District and during the hearing of the said appeal without condoning the delay, the Collector of the District cancelled the subsequent order dated 6.4.1998 and passed the impugned order dated 3.2.2001, Annexure-5. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while considering the appeal filed against the order dated 29.1.1998, which order stood recalled/ modified under orders dated 6.4.1998, the Collector of the District could not have set aside the subsequent order dated 6.4.1998, as there was no appeal filed against the said order and period for filing the appeal provided under Sub-section (5) of Section 23 of the Act had already expired. In any case without condoning the delay, appeal against the order dated 6.4.1998 could not have been entertained. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the memo of appeal on the basis of 3 which Misc. Case No. 27 of 1998 was registered. 5. State counsel and the counsel for the private Respondent no.6 have not disputed that in Misc. Case No. 27 of 1998, order dated 6.4.1998 was never challenged. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case as also in view of the submission noted in paragraphs 4 and 5 above, I set aside orders dated 3.2.2001 as also the original order dated 6.4.1998, as contained in Annexures-5 and 2 in CWJC No. 2504 of 2001 as also the subsequent order dated 7.12.2007, Annexure-9 in MJC No. 288 of 2008 and direct the petitioner and the private Respondent no.6 to appear before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Hajipur, on 29.9.2008 who should not only hear the parties once again after fixing a date but should also peruse the documents and grant them different days in a week for holding Hat over their raiyati lands. 7. Until the parties appear and fresh order is passed in compliance of this order, Hat be held as has been directed under order dated 6.4.1998, Annexure-2. 8. Both the writ and the contempt applications are disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)