SISHIR SINHA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned AC to the learned Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 4. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 6 and 7. However, it is a common case of the parties that the respondent no.5-Purnendu Narayan Sinha has passed away during the pendency of the present writ petition and his two sons, namely, respondent no. 6 and 7 are already on record, who are represented by their learned respective counsel. Hence, with the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for consideration on merits, treating the respondent no. 6 and 7 as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent no.5.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 23.06.2000 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 170 of 1997, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition, whereby the aforesaid revision application filed by the original respondent no. 5-Purnendu Narayan Sinha, who is now dead and is substituted by his two sons, namely, respondent no. 6 and 7, has been allowed by the respondent-Director of Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in exercise of his powers under Sec. 35 of The Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned order, submits that apart from the merits, the impugned revisional order is liable to be set aside and quashed by this Court on the ground that it is an ex parte order. By referring to the averments made in paragraphs-14 and 17 of the writ petition, he has submitted that at no point of time notice was validly served upon the petitioner and he had no knowledge and information about the filing and pendency of the aforesaid revision application. Therefore, according to him, there has been violation of rules of natural justice, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law.