After having heard the parties and on going through the records including the impugned order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires reconsideration and fresh decision by the respondent Circle Officer, Beeraul, Darbhanga. From the plain reading of the impugned order dated 20.02.2013, it appears that homestead parcha was granted to the private respondent no. 5 in the year 1989-90, but before passing the aforesaid order all the concerned persons were not heard, though the petitioner claims to have purchased the aforesaid land through a registered sale deed. Furthermore, if the parcha was granted to the private respondent no. 5 in the year 1989-90, then the respondent Circle Officer, Beeraul, Darbhanga, had no occasion to pass the impugned order. If the private respondent No. 5 was at all aggrieved on account of his dispossession from the lands in question by the petitioner, then he could have taken recourse to the provisions of The Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009, which has not been done in the present case and under that Act, the Circle Officer is not the prescribed authority to pass any order. From reading of the whole impugned order, this Court does not find as to under which provision of law the impugned order was passed by the respondent Circle Officer, Beeraul, Darbhanga. He has not indicated in the impugned order as to how he is exercising his powers in favour of the private respondent no. 5. Apparently, the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent Circle Officer while passing the impugned order.
