Binod Kumar Roy and Indu Prabha Singh JJ.

1. The petitioner prays to quash an order dated 7-8-1991 passed by Shri Panchan Lal, the Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar (Respondent No. 3) in Revision Case No. 36/90 (as contained in Annexure-4) as also letter No. 258, dated 30-8-1991 of the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 5) (as contained in Annexure-7). Through a supplementary petition certain further reliefs including quashing of a further order dated 1-6-1992 passed by Respondent No. 1 in same revision case, (as contained in Annexure-12) has been prayed for.

2. The relevant facts for purpose of disposal of this writ application are in a narrow compass. It appears that a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) was initiated against the petitioner for determining his ceiling area by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 6). A draft statement under Sec. 10 of the Act was also passed inviting objections thereby (sic). The petitioner filed his objection under Sec. 10(3) of the Act stating, inter alia, therein that on the appointed day, on the enquiry reports, he was entitled to hold Class IV lands for two units and that illegally some lands are being treated as his benami. By an order dated 15-1-1990 (as contained in Annexure-1), the proceeding was closed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms after accepting the objections of the petitioner. The Collector, Darbhanga (Respondent No. 4) by his order dated 23-3-1990 (as contained in Annexure-2) however, did not accept the aformentioned order and directed acquisition of 97 acres of land under Section 15(1) of the Act. The petitioner moved Board of Revenue against the aforementioned order of the Collector, Darbhanga in Revision No. 36 of 1990. The revision application was admitted on 2-7-1990 observing to the effect that there are apparently some factual errors and that principles of natural justice have not been satisfied and the manner in which the learned Collector has arrived at his own conclusion raises relevant questions of law. The lower court records were called for. An order of status quo was also passed. Revision application was heard on several dates and orders were reserved on 11-12-1990. Mr. Ghosh, the then Additional Member, Board of Revenue, who had passed the aforesaid order, however, was transferred and could not pass final orders. The revision application was transferred to Respondent No. 3, who by his order dated 1-7-1991, fixed 7-8-1991 for re-hearing directing the parties to be informed accordingly. An information was sent to the learned Counsel for the petitioner by the office of the Board of Revenue, who, however, intimated that the files have been taken away by the petitioner and thus he be informed. From the records of the case produced before us it appears that a registered letter, without any acknowledgement due, bearing No. 5266 was despatched to the petitioner Ram Chandra Choudhary on 6-7-1991. The revision application was placed on 7-8-1991. On 7-8-91 the petitioner was absent. A prayer was made by the learned Counsel for the State for withdrawing the order of status quo passed on 2-7-1990. Respondent No. 3 vacated the order of status quo by order dated 7-8-1991 directing to put up the records on 8-10-1991. On 12-8-91 i.e., only about five days thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before Respondent No. 3 for recalling the order dated 7-8-1991 stating, inter alia, therein that the petitioner was not served with any notice fixing re-hearing of the case on 7-8-1991 ; that on 7-8-1991 when his learned Counsel came to appear before Respondent No. 3, he was informed by the Peshkar that the case has already been adjourned to 8-10-1991 for final hearing but when learned Counsel saw the record, after facing of the court, he was surprised to find that the order of status qu