Judgment B. P. Sinha, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No.2 i. e. the Circle Officer, Madhepur in the district of madhubani dated 7th of February, 1981 (Annexure 6 ). By this order, the circle Officer has granted Parcha to respondents 3 to 8 under the Bihar Privileged persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947. 2. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that this order has been passed without giving notice to the petitioner and without hearing him. It is submitted that no enquiry was held in presence of the petitioner and after giving him a notice, which is a mandatory requirement. Learned counsel for tne petitioner has referred to Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules framed under the Bihar privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Rule 4 provides that on receipt of any of the applications mentioned in Rule 3, the Collector shall start proceedings under the relevant sections to which the applications relate and deal with them in the manner provided for land revenue cases. According to Rule 5 (1), the collector shall either himself make local inquiry or have such inquiry made by an y responsible officer not below the rank of a Circle Inspector or Welfare Inspector and satisfy himself as to the correctness or otherwise of the contents of such applications. Rule 5 (2) provides that the enquiring officer shall issue a notice in form f to all the interested parties intimating the date on which the enquiry shall be made and directing parties to produce all the evidence in their possession support of or against the application. According to Rule 5 (3), the enquiring officer shall make a record of the evidence produced before him and, if he is not the in collector, submit his report to the Collector. Rule 5 (4) further provides that the collector shall after hearing the parties on all points arising out of the application pass such order as to him seems to be just and proper. 3. From the above, it is evident that the parties must have a notice of the enquiry and after the enquiry having been held, they must have an opportunity of being heard by the Collector before an order is passed. There is no counter-affidavit filed in this case either on behalf of the state or on behalf of the private respondents. From the above, it is evident that the parties must have a notice of the enquiry and after the enquiry having been held, they must have an opportunity of being heard by the Collector before an order is passed. There is no counter-affidavit filed in this case either on behalf of the state or on behalf of the private respondents. From the impugned order as well as from the enquiry reports, which have been placed on record,it is clear that the petitioner had no notice either at the stage of enquiry or at the stage of passing the impugned order by the Circle Officer. 4. This application, therefore, succeeds and the order contained in Annexure 6 is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Collector of Madhubani, who shall after proper notice to the landlord, either himself hold the enquiry or get the enquiry held by some other officer not below the rank of a Circle Inspector or a Welfare Inspector and pass appropriate orders according to law. 5. While parting with this judgment, I am constrained to observe that the officers responsible for disposing of the applications under the Privileged Persons homestead Tenancy Act seem to dispose of such applications in a very casual manner. This is one of the welfare legislation enacted-for the benefit of the privileged persons who are either destitude or homeless. It is expected that the persons charged with the responsibility of deciding such applications shall take pains to decide the matter not in a casual manner but strictly in accordance with law. Application allowed.