Judgment R. C. P. Sinha, J. 1. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the prayer of the two petitioners is to quash the order dated 10-3-1976 and the order dated 24th/25 July, 1981 passed by the Circle Officer (respondent No.2), true copies whereof are Annexure 1 and 2 respectively to this application. By the order dated 10-3-1975, respondent No.2 ordered for issue of parcha of an under-raiyat to respondent No.1 in respect of five decimals of land of plot No.1381 of Khata No.38 lying in village Pakri of Bidupur Anchal. By the said order fair and equitable rent has also been fixed. By the order (Annexure-2), respondent No.2 rejected the petition filed by the petitioners to recall the order contained in Annexure-1. 2. Respondent No.1 had filed an application (Annexure-3) for issuance of parcha under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) with respect to the aforesaid piece of land. On the aforesaid application, Case No.127/1974-75 was instituted and an order for issue of notices to the petitioner for filing objection was passed by respondent No.2 by his order dated 11-2-1975. No show cause was filed on behalf of the petitioners and the impugned order dated 10-3-1975 was passed, as mentioned above. Thereafter, as mentioned above, the prayer for recalling the aforesaid order was refused by the order dated 25-7-1981 (Annexure-2 ). Hence, this writ application. 3. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid orders on various grounds as enumerated herein below :- (i) There is neither any assertion nor any finding that respondent No.1 was or is privileged person/privileged tenant. (ii) There is neither any claim made in the application for issue of parcha nor any finding that respondent No.1 holds homestead under the petitioners and is or, but for special contract liable to pay rent for such homestead to the aforesaid persons. (iii) There is neither any assertion nor any finding that respondent No.1 does not hold another land or holds land not exceeding one acre ; or that he is not a mahajan. (iv) Respondent No.1 has denied to have any connection with the lands in question by filing a petition on 10-3-1975. (v) Respondent No.1 has himself purchased the aforesaid peice of land by a registered sale-deed dated 19-5-1976. (iv) Respondent No.1 has denied to have any connection with the lands in question by filing a petition on 10-3-1975. (v) Respondent No.1 has himself purchased the aforesaid peice of land by a registered sale-deed dated 19-5-1976. (vi) No notice was ever served on the petitioners and hence no show cause was filed. 4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that respondent no.2 has rightly issued the Parcha to respondent No.1 and has rightly fixed the fair and equitable rent of the aforesaid land. He has further submitted that no petition declaiming his right to the land in question was ever filed by respondent no.1. The aforesaid sale-deed does not relate to the lands in question ; rather the same relates to another piece of land of plot No.1331, and that he has acquired the said land much after the order dated 10th March, 1975. He has also submitted that the fact that respondent No.1 was in possession of the afore said piece of land and had constructed a house thereon, is sufficient to hold that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondent No.1 and that there had been an implied contract on the part of the tenant to compensate the landlord for the use and occupation of the homestead. According to the definition of privileged person as given in Sec.2 (i) of the Act is privileged person is a person who is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under-tenure-holder or a mahajan and, who besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. privileged tenant has also been fined under Sec.2 (j) according to which a person can be said to be a privileged tenant, who holds homestead under another person and is or but for a special contract would, liable to pay rent for such homestead, to such person The world rent has also been defined in Sec.2 (k) of the Act which means, whatever is lawfully payable or deliverable in money or in any other form by a privileged tenant to his landlord on account of the use or occupation of the homestead held by such tenant. 5. In the present case, it has not been alleged by respondent No.1 in the application filed for issue of Parcha that he is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under tenure-holder or mahajan. 5. In the present case, it has not been alleged by respondent No.1 in the application filed for issue of Parcha that he is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under tenure-holder or mahajan. It has also not been averred that he holds no other land or holds land not exceeding one acre in his petition. There is also no assertion that he holds the land in question under the petitioners and he is not liable to pay rent on account of some special contract. It has also not been alleged in the petition that the land in question was given to respondent No.1 or that he is living or is in occupation of the land with their consent and pays rent in money or in any other form on account of use and occupation of the homestead held by him. There is no such finding also in the impugned order. It has been held in the case of Nagina Sah V/s. Rajpati Devi and others, 1979 Bihar Bar council Journal 245 that a privileged person is a person who has his homestead and excluding it either he holds no land or holds land not exceeding one acre and that he should have no land besides the land over which he is laying his claim as homestead. In my opinion the necessary ingredients for being a privileged raiyat or a privileged tenant are wanting in this case. According to Sec.4 of the Act, a privileged tenant is entitled to have permanent tenancy in the homestead held by him and fair rent of such land is to be fixed by the Collector under the provisions of Sec.6 of the Act, where there is no contract or no valid contract in respect of the land or where the rent has been contracted as fair and equitable. In the present case, respondent No.2 without giving any finding regarding the matters referred to above has granted Parcha and fixed rent and as such, in my opi nion, the aforesaid impugned order is not accordance with law. 6. There appears to be another infirmity in the proceeding and in the impugned order dated 10-3-1975. In the present case, respondent No.2 without giving any finding regarding the matters referred to above has granted Parcha and fixed rent and as such, in my opi nion, the aforesaid impugned order is not accordance with law. 6. There appears to be another infirmity in the proceeding and in the impugned order dated 10-3-1975. According to Rule 3 of the Bihar Privileged persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), an application has to be made by a privileged tenant under sub-section (I) of section 5 of the Act, either for restoration of possession over the homestead in form-A or under sub-section (1) of Sec.6 of the said Act for determination of fair and equitable rent in Form-B. On receipt of any such application, the collector is to start a proceeding under the relevant section to which the applica tion relates and deal with the application in the manner provided for land revenue cases. According to Rule, 5, after the initiation of the proceedings the Collector is either himself to make the local inspection or to have such local enquiry made by an officer not below the rank of Circle Inspector or Welfare Inspector and to satisfy himself as to the correctness or otherwise of such application. Under Rule 5 (3) the enquiring officer has to issue notice in Form-F to all the interested parties intimating the date on which the enquiry is to be made and directing them to produce all evidence in their possession in support of or against the application. Under Rule 5 (3) the enquiring officer shall have to make a record of the evidence produced before him and, if he is not the Collector, submit his report to the collector, who, after bearing the parties on all points taken in the application, will pass just and proper orders as envisaged by sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the rules. From perusal of the ordersheets of the case (Annexure-2) it does not appear that the aforesaid provisions of law have been complied with in the case. From perusal of the ordersheets of the case (Annexure-2) it does not appear that the aforesaid provisions of law have been complied with in the case. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has referred to the order sheet dated 11-2-1975 in which it has been mentioned by respondent No.2 that accord ing to the decision of the Bihar Government, Revenue and Land Reforms department contained in letter No.6040/75 dated 15-2-1975, recording of tenancy-right drive has been started from 27-1-1975, and for this purpose a committee has been formed and form has been filled up by the committee and filed on behalf of respondent No 1. On the basis of the aforesaid observation, mr. Shravan Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the requirements of the rules, referred to above, have been fulfilled, but I do not find any substance in this submission. If law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done according to the provisions of law prescribed by the Act or the rules framed thereunder. I do not find any material to hold that the procedure laid down in Rule 5 of the Rules has been complied with. From the materials on record before this Court it does not appear that either respondent No.2 himself held the local enquiry or he got it done by any responsible officer not below the rank of the Circle Inspector or welfare Inspector. A Bench decision of this Court in the case of Hiralal Vishwakarma V/s. Vishwanath Sah andothers, (1978 BBCJ 673) has held that the enquiry must be made by a Collector or a responsible officer not below the rank of a Circle inspector or a Welfare Officer and that the enquiry made by a Karamchari is not the compliance of the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, as would appear from the passage quoted below :- "5. The Act is aimed at securing a homestead for a privileged tenant and the order passed by the Collector under the Act has been made final. This is with a view to protect the privileged tenants from the harassment of fighting litigations in courts of appeal or revision. The Act is aimed at securing a homestead for a privileged tenant and the order passed by the Collector under the Act has been made final. This is with a view to protect the privileged tenants from the harassment of fighting litigations in courts of appeal or revision. In view of the stringent provisions of the Act which make the order of the Collector final, it becomes obligatory on the part of the collector to adhere to the provisions of the law and strictly comply with the rules as to the mode of notice, enquiry including local enquiry etc. , and record proper findings in such matters. The pro visions contained in the Rules as to the method of notice and enquiry are meant as safeguards against arbitrary exercise of the wide powers conferred on the Collector under the Act", In the case of Hira Lal Vishwakarma (supra) it has also been held that in order to grant Parcha regarding tenancy to a permanent raiyat, it is incumbent upon the Collector to give a finding that person claiming to be a privileged person is not a proprietor or a tenure-holder and besides the homestead, he does not hold more than one acre of land. 7 From the facts stated above, it is clear that in this case neither there is any assertion nor there is any report of competent authority nor any finding on the matter and a Parcha has been granted to respondent No.1. In such circums tances, the impugned order is not fit to be maintained. 8. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 has lastly contended that some assertions have been made in the counter-affidavit, which have not been controver ted by the petitioners and as such it should be held that the Parcha has rightly been granted to him. In the counter-affidavit also necessary ingredients for being a privileged person/privileged tenant, have not been mentioned. Be that as it may, I do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission as necessary assertions should have been made in the original application as well as findings should have been given by respondent No.2 for ordering grant of parcha to respondent no.1. 9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the case and it is fit to be allowed. 9. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the case and it is fit to be allowed. In the result, the application is allowed and the impugned orders dated 10-2-1975 and 24th/25th July, 1981 (Annexure 1 and 2 respectively) are quashed. There will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.