Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 27.12.2001 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent Anchaladhikari, Balramapur( District Katihar), in Case No.3 of 2001-02 in a proceeding under Section 48 D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short B.T. Act), whereby and whereunder claims raised on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 with respect to the lands bearing khata no.26 appertaining to plot no. 755 area 33 decimals, plot no.756 area 1 acre 60 decimals and plot no.761 area 47 decimals, as also with respect to the lands bearing khata no. 27 appertaining to plot no. 754 area 1.01 acres, total area being 3.41 acres situate at Mauza Ahuta (in short lads in dispute) have been allowed and they have been declared raiyat with respect to the lands in dispute in terms of Section 48D of the B.T.Act. The appeal preferred by the petitioners before the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi in Case No. 2 of 2004-05 has also been rejected by the impugned appellate order dated 22.7.2006 (Annexure-1). Hence, the present writ petition.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that though the petitioners or their ancestors purchased the lands in dispute through different registered sale deeds in the year 1972 and 1974, and though they became the rightful owner of the lands in dispute, yet when the impugned proceeding under Section 48D of the B.T.Act was initiated at the behest of the respondent nos. 4 to 6, neither they were impleaded as party respondents nor they were given any opportunity of hearing by the respondent Anchaladhikari, and entire proceeding was carried out behind the back of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the respondent nos. 4 to 6 have not correctly disclosed the name of the actual raiyat of the lands in dispute, while filing their applications under Section 48D of the B.T. Act. According to him, for raising a claim under Section 48D of the B.T. Act, an application is required to be filed in the prescribed form “C” by the applicant disclosing all the relevant facts with respect to the lands so claimed before the Anchaladhikari concerned and only thereafter the matter can proceed further for determination of the claims under section 48D of the B.T.Act, but that has not been done in the present case. It is next submitted that the appellate authority has also not considered these material facts and non-compliance of mandatory provisions of law, and has arbitrarily rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 has opposed the prayer made in the present writ application and has tried to support the impugned orders. It is contended that in the proceeding under Section 48D of the B.T. Act, general notice was issued, but since no objection was filed by any person regarding the claims raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6, therefore, finally by the impugned order dated 27.12.2001(Aannexure-2) the claims raised on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 have been allowed, which has been affirmed by the appellate authority vide impugned order dated 22.7.2006 (Annexure-1). However, to a query made by this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 was fair enough to concede that the application filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 6 was not in the prescribed form- C and the petitioners were not impleaded as party respondents in that proceeding.

5. After having heard the parties, and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that entire matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision by the original authority.

6. Section 48D of the B.T. Act provides that if an occupancy under-raiyat over a plot of land files an application in the prescribed manner, then he shall be entitled to acquire the right of a raiyat