Aftab Alam, J.

1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenges an order, dated 20.3.2005 passed by the Collector, Siwan in Revision No. 01 of 2003-04. By the impugned order the Collector cancelled the Parcha granted to Lutawan Sah, the father of the present petitioner under the provisions of the Bihar Priviledged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act in respect of 10 dhurs of land of plot No. 7029 under khata No. 1303 situate at village Titara, Anchal Mairwa in the district of Siwan.

2. The case has many unusual features but the undeniable facts may be stated as follows. Lutawan Sah made an application for grant of Parcha for the disputed land that was registered as P.P.H. Case No. 49 of 1974-75 before the Circle Officer, Mairwa. The orders passed in the proceeding and the enquiry report by the Halka Karmchari and the Circle Inspector are brought on record as Annexure A to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 6. The enquiry report makes interesting reading and the relevant portion from it is reproduced below:

BHUTPURVA BHUSWAMI SE TO MULAKAT NAHI HUI. SAWIKAR NAHIN KARTE HAIN KI SRI LUTAWAN SAH PAAR PRIST PAR ABHILIKHIT VAS BHUMI PAR RAH RAHE HAIN PARANTU ASTHANIYE JAANCH PARTAL TATHA SRI LUTAWAN SAH KE DWARA UPASTHAPIT RASIDON / DASTAWEZON KO DEKHNE TATHA UN KE DWARA PESH KITE GAI GAWAHON (JIN KA NAAM AUR PATA UPANT DIYE GAI HAIN) KE BEYAN SE ASPAST HAI KI WE IS VASBHUMI PAR .... ARSE SE RAH RAHE HAIN. IN KA IS VAS BHUMI SE KOE SAMBANDH NAHIN HAI. AB ANUPATTAH RUPIYA DAS PAISE SOLLAH MALGUZARI KE ROOP MAIN UN KE DWARA DEY HAI. UPARYUKT TATHYON KE ADHAR PAR MAIN SIFARISH KARTA BOON MERA KHEYAL HAI KI SRI LUTAWAN SAH KO PARTHIT PARCHA DE DIYA JAI. DENE KA PRASHAN HI NAHIN OOTHTA AUR SAMBANDHIT BHOOSWAMI KO OON KE DWARA DE MALGUZARI SE CHOOT DENE AUR OON KI CHATI PURTI KARNE KI KARWAI KI JAI.

3. On the basis of this report the Circle Officer passed the order stating that the applicant was in occupation (Dakhaldar) of the disputed land for the past twenty years and he was a privileged tenant. He should be given parcha of the land.

4. The observation that the applicant was a privileged tenant or his occupation of the land was with the consent and approval of the land holder and he was not there as a tres passer or squatter is neither supported by the enquiry report nor by any other material.

5. The enquiry itself was made plainly in violation of Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules.

6. From the records of the proceeding in which Lutawan Sah was granted Parcha it is evident that:

(a) No notice in Form F was issued to the parties as required by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5.

(b) No record was maintained of the evidence produced in course of the enquiry.

(c) There was no enquiry as to whether or not Lutawan Sah was in possession of any other homestead.

(d) There was absolutely no material to support the finding that Lutawan Sah was a privileged person.

(e) There was no finding that Lutawan Sah was living on the disputed land with the consent and approval of the land holder and was not a squatter or trespasser and was consequently covered by the definition of privileged tenant within the meaning of the Act.

7. It is well settled that the failure to hold an enquiry following the provisions of Rule 5 and the failure to record the findings as indicated above makes the entire proceeding vitiated and a Parcha granted in such a proceeding is quite unsustainable. See (i) Hiralal Vishwakarma V/s. Vishwanath Sah 1978 PLJR 398, (ii) Bhagrashan Rai V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. 1979 B.L.J.R. 136 and (iii) Rajeshwar Pd. V/s. State of Bihar 1990 (1) PLJR 35.

8. Be that as it may the Parcha in respect of the disputed land was granted to Lutawan Sah in the year, 1975 and according to the petitioner the matter became final since the order granting Parcha was not challenged before the civil court or by filing a writ petition before this Court. (At that time there was no provision for appeal or revision in the