D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.8.2001 passed by the D.C.L.R., Hazaribagh (respondent No. 4) in L.C. Case No. 7 of 2001, the order dated 29.10.2002 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 16 of 2001 and the order dated 25.7.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 in Land Ceiling Revision Case No 52 of 2002 whereby the petitioner's claim for pre -emption, was rejected. The petitioner had originally claimed before the D.C.L.R., Hazaribagh in his application vide L.C. Case No. 7 of 2001 that he is a co -sharer and adjacent raiyat of the land in Khata Nos. 49, Plot Nos. 1577, 1583, 1584 and 1588 and adjacent raiyat of land in Khata No. 63, Plot Nos. 1586 and 1621.
(2.) THE respondent Nos. 2 to 5, without prior intimation to the petitioner, had executed a deed of sale in respect of the land in Khata Nos. 49 and 63, plot Nos. 1577. 1583. 1584, 1588, 1586 and 1621, measuring a total area of 1.64 acres in favour of the other persons. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in response to the notice, though the petitioner was appearing in the proceeding regularly but the respondent/opposite party had evaded his appearance and ultimately on 31.8.2001, the respondent had appeared but without conducting any inquiry and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence in support of his claim, the impugned order was passed merely on the basis of recitals regarding the description of boundaries, as contained in the sale deed of the disputed land. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to explain the purported discrepancies in the description of boundaries but without any opportunity being given to him in this regard, the impugned order dismissing his claim for possession was passed. It is further submitted that even the appellate authority and revisional authority have failed to consider this vital aspect that the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to submit his case and the impugned order of the D.C.L.R. was affirmed against the principles of natural justice.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the private respondent who has filed counter affidavit, submits that the petitioner had though filed his case before the D.C.L.R. but he had not offered to adduce any evidence whatsoever and therefore, the petitioner's claim that he was not afforded any opportunity to adduce evidence is totally misleading and misconceived.;