The importance of issuing notice to all interested parties and providing them an opportunity to produce evidence in proceedings under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947, as mandated by Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948.

1. The petitioners, all sons of one Kapildeo Prasad, have come under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dt. 15-4-1987 as contained in Annexure-3 passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Baniapur (Respondent No.2) under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in case No. 214 of 1967-68 by which the respondent No. 3 has been pleased to accept the proposal of the Circle Inspector to grant Parchas of one Katha two dhurs of land in plot No. 1418 appertaining to Khata No. 379 of village Baniapur to Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by grant of an appropriate writ/ order/ direction.

2. The facts are short and simple.

3. The petitioners assert that plot No. 1418 aforementioned originally belonged to one Bhago Kuer, widow of late Sheo Gobind Sah, who had died issueless and thereafter Bikau Prasad, the landlord assumed that land and came in possession. On 30th Bhado, 1340, Fasli, the aforementioned landlord orally settled the disputed land with Dulhin Phulkumari Devi, mother of the petitioner, and fixed its rent as five annas and also granted rent receipts. Even a Yaddast was also prepared in support of that oral settlement. At the time of vesting of his Zamindari, the outgoing landlord filed his return showing the aforesaid plot in the possession of Dulhin Phul Kumari Devi. The State of Bihar also entered her name in the Tenants Ledger Register II. She also started paying rent to the State of Bihar till her death in 1976 and thereafter the petitioners are in possession of the aforesaid land and they are paying rent to the State of Bihar against rent receipts granted in their favour. The petitioners have got their need, Khunta etc. on the plot in question. They had bathan also which had fallen down recently, respondents Nos. 3 and 4, who have got their houses in homestead plots Nos. 1414 and 1419, had approached the mother of the petitioners for purchasing the land in question. Their proposal, however, was turned down. Thereafter by bringing the Anchal Officials in their collusion, they got a Parcha issued by suppressing the processes. On 17th May, 1975, the petitioners and their mother came to know about the issuance of the Parcha and thereafter, they made an enquiry and came to know that the Karamchari had submitted a report for grant of Parcha in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the basis of which case No. 214 of 1967-68 was initiated and the order aforementioned was passed, after directing an enquiry by the Circle Inspector who, too, had not issued notice to them. A title suit was filed by the petitioners and their mother for declaration of their title to and for confirmation of possession over the land in question and for a further declaration of non-acquisition of any title by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by impleading them but at their instance the suit was held to have abated under the provisions of S. 4(c) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956.

4. The writ application was admitted on 29-11-1982 and notice were also issued to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 but no counter affidavit has been filed by them.

5. Mr. Nagendra Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the impugned order chiefly on the following grounds :

(i) The enquiry and the impugned order stands vitiated inasmuch as no notice was given to the petitioners or their mother.

(ii) Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have not denied that they owned and possessed homestead plots Nos. 1414 and 1419 and thus they were illegally granted parchas under the Act. The relevant extract of the Records of Rights Annexure-5 of village Baniapur supports his contention.

(iii) The land in question is situated in a Hat and Bazar area to which the provision of the Act do not apply and accordingly, the entire proceedings are vitiated.

6. From a perusal of the orders dt. 2-1-1967 and 15-4-1967 (as contained in Annexure-3) it appears that respondents Nos.2 and 3 were not held to