1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 10.08.2010 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.37 of 2008 and also for quashing of the order dated 10.12.2007 passed by the respondent no.3 in Miscellaneous Case No.51 of 2006-07 by which the said respondent has held that the petitioner is in possession of the land pertaining to Khata no.6 and 7, Mouza Sonardih pertaining to 34 plots.

2. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority concerned has decided right, title and interest which is not in their domain. He next submits that the said order is also ex-parte order and in view of that, the same may kindly be quashed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that it transpires that after the said order is passed, the petitioner herein has filed the Miscellaneous Case No.51 of 2006-07 which was also decided by the order dated 20.02.2008 considering that the notice in the earlier case has already been received by the petitioner dated 30.05.2007 and in view of that, the same was dismissed and thereafter the petitioner has preferred the appeal which was further dismissed as it was barred by time.

4. Mr. Mehta, the learned counsel next submits that opportunity was not provided and right, title and interest has been decided which is not in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the opportunity of hearing in the earlier case has also been provided which is apparent from the order dated 20.8.2008 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.51 of 2006-07 which has been filed for recalling of the ex-parte order and after one month the Appeal has been preferred and in view of that, the same has been dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 alco accepts the said submission of the learned counsel for the respondent State and he further added saying that the respondent no.4 has preferred a petition before the High Court for employment and the land of the petitioner was acquired by the BCCL and in terms of the Scheme the employment has not been provided and pursuant to that, the order was passed by the High Court in W.P.(S) No.2430 of 2005 putting the respondent no.4 at liberty, if so desires, and in the event, the Additional Collector determines the right of the petitioner over the land acquired by the Company, the Company will consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensation as also the employment in lieu thereof in accordance with the Scheme of the Company within a period of three months with effect from the date of receipt of the report of the Additional Collector and the amount so determined shall be paid to the rightful owners with statutory interest. He further submits pursuant to that, the authorities have issued the notice to M/s BCCL and M/s BCCL has chosen not to appear and thereafter the order has been passed. He then submits that the respondent no.4 has also been provided employment by M/s BCCL. He then submits in view of that, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

7. Prima-facie, it appears that pursuant to the order of the High Court in W.P.(S) No.2430 of 2025, the authority concerned has passed the order saying that the land was in the possession of the father of respondent no.4. In the said case, the petitioner has not appeared and pursuant to that, miscellaneous case and considering that in the earlier case, the petitioner has received the notice and in spite of receiving of notice, has not appeared, and in view of that the miscellaneous case was dismissed and the appeal preferred against the said order is also dismissed. It appears that so far as the said observation is concerned, that was with respect to the observation of High Court relating to the employment of the petitioner, if any, and said land was acquired by M/s BCCL, and M/s BCCL has not produced any document before the authority concerned, and further it is well settled that right, title and interest cannot be decided by the revenue authorities.

8. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that if so advised, they may approach the Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the said issue.

9. The observation made in the impugned order by the revenue authority shall not come in the way of deciding the suit if preferred by the petitioner.

10. It is made clear, that this Court has not gone into the merit of the employment to the respondent no.4. M/s BCCL, on its own volition and pursuant to the order of the High Court, has appointed the respondent no.4.

11. With above observation, this writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1722 of 2011 is disposed of.