The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and legal provisions in passing orders and allowing impleadment in cases.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed in Revision Case No. 52/2003 whereby the respondent No.2 has recalled the earlier order dated 27.07.2018 and allowed the substitution petition filed by the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b), who happen to be the legal heirs of the original respondent No.5 (since deceased).

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that the land appertaining to Khata No. 22, Plot No. 340, Village-Pindarkom, P.S-Hatia, District-Ranchi, measuring an area of 1.15 Acres was recorded in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights as raiyati land jointly in the name of the petitioner’s ancestors and the respondent Nos. 6 to 21. The respondent Nos. 6 to 12 sold a portion of the said land admeasuring 23 Decimals to the father (Late Md. Israfil) of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) by virtue of registered sale deed No. 8734 dated 7.8.2001. The petitioner and his brothers, having come to know about the said transfer, filed an application being Pre-emption Case No. 19/2001-02 under Section 16(3)(i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’] against Md. Israfil and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 before the respondent No.4 on 6.11.2001 claiming re-conveyance of the land in their favour on the ground that they were co-heirs as well as adjoining raiyats whereas the respondent No.5 was neither a co-sharer nor an adjoining raiyat of the same. The father of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed show cause affidavit in the aforesaid case contesting the claim of the applicants on the ground that the said land was not in the joint possession of the applicants as well as the opposite parties of the said case (the father of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) along with the respondent Nos. 6 to 12), rather the same was partitioned. The respondent No.4, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, allowed the said pre-emption application vide order dated 30.01.2003. Aggrieved thereby, Md. Israfil and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed Misc. Appeal Case No. 5R 15/02-03 before the respondent No.3 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2003 affirming the said order of the respondent No.4. Thereafter, Md. Israfil and the respondent Nos. 6 to 12 filed Revision Case No. 52 of 2003 before the respondent No.2 which was allowed vide order dated 01.02.2007 setting aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 on the ground that the application filed by the applicants under Section 16(3)(i) of the Act, 1961 itself was defective for non-compliance of Rule 19 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1963’]. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 19 to 21 filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 2770 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 29/01/2018 remanding the matter to the respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after hearing the parties by observing that admittedly, on the date of passing of the order dated 01.02.2007 by the respondent No.2, the purchaser of the said property i.e. the father of the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) as well as one of the sellers of the said property i.e. the father of the respondent Nos. 8(a) to 8(c) were dead and thus in that view of the matter, the order dated 01.02.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 not being sustainable in the eyes of law was set aside. Moreover, the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b) were directed to file a substitution petition in the Court below within a period of two months from the date of passing of the said order. The order dated 29.01.2018 was communicated to the respondent No.2 and the notices were also issued to the petitioner as well as the respondents including the respondent Nos. 5(a) & 5(b). The petitioner appeared in the Co