Judgment G.C. Bharuka, J. In the present writ application the petitioner has challenged the legality of Annexure I, which is a statement prepared in Form No. 26 prescribed by the State Government as per executive instructions contained in Memo/No. AIT-2024/65-7585R dated 23.11.1965. The entries, in this from relate to the lands in dispute and shows that the respondent no. 3, Badri Thakur, has been recognised as a privileged person and rent has been fixed in his favour. 2. Admittedly the disputed land lies in "Manigachhi anchal and, is comprised of C.S. Khata No. 77, Plot, nos. 1287 and 1290 equivalent to Revisional Survey Khata No. 488 Plot No. 1886. The disputed area measures about 6½ Dhoars. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased the land in question from Bishwanath Thakur S/o Swaroop Thakur. and Mastt. Rameshwari W/o Ram Roop Thakur through registered sale deed dated 8.1.1970. The sale deed was for an area be 3.25 Dhoors. These lands were part of Khata No. 77, Plot No. 1287 and 1290. According to the petitioner, by mistake one plot number was wrongly mentioned as Plot No. 1827 in the sale deed but the boundaries of the lands purchased by him have been correctly mentioned, in the sale deed. It is said that the boundary mentioned in the sale deed, tallies with the description of the lands given in Form No. 26, which is annexed as Annexure 1. It is also an admitted fact that after purchase of the land, the petitioner had constructed a house thereon. 4. The case of Respondent no. 3 is that pursuant to some proceedings initiated at his instance under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 thereinafter referred to as 'the Act') he acquired the title over the land. In support of his contention he, relied on Annexure 1 claiming it to be Basgit purcha issued in his favour. It seems that relying on Annexure 1 after the lapse of about six years, respondent no. 3 filed applications before the Circle Officer for getting the land Vacated from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has encroached over the land Pursuant to the said application notices were issued which are Annexure 2 series. Thereafter getting the local enquiry made with regard to the position of the land and construction thereof, the application filed by respondent no. Thereafter getting the local enquiry made with regard to the position of the land and construction thereof, the application filed by respondent no. 3 was rejected by the Circle Officer, Manigachi. The order is annexed as Annexure, 5 to the writ application. It seems that the same applications were also filed by respondent no. 3 before the Deputy Collector. The said application was also rejected by his order dated 3.2.1978, which is Annexure 6 to the present writ application. The apprehension of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the aforesaid rejection orders, the Anchal Adhikari, Manigachi served notices to the petitioner threatening him for removing the alleged encroachment he is under the imminent threat of his house being demolished by exercise of executive powers. 5. On behalf of respondent no. 3 it has been submitted that the present writ application is not maintainable since the petitioner is guilty of laches in moving this Hon'ble Court after more than 12 years of issuance of the alleged purcha as contained in Annexure 1. It has also been submitted on behalf of respondent no. 3 that Annexure 1 has been issued after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties at length, I am of the considered opinion that Annexure 1, the alleged purcha which in fact is in a form prescribed under the executive instructions issued by the Government for guidance, of the authorities under the Act does, not confer any right, title or, interest in favour of respondent no. 3. f Further, as it appears from the records of the case the same seems to have been issued malafidely by the concerned authorities without following the mandatory provisions under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 7. At the time of admission of the present case and, even thereafter on 27.4.1978 this Court had specifically directed the Anchal, Adhikari to send the records of case no. 23 of 1970-71 which is stated to be the basis for preparing Annexure 1. But neither the records have been made available to this Court nor the State has come out with any specific statement in this regard. The counsel for respondent no. 3 says that he is not in possession of any document to show that Annexure 1 was issued pursuant to any proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Act. But neither the records have been made available to this Court nor the State has come out with any specific statement in this regard. The counsel for respondent no. 3 says that he is not in possession of any document to show that Annexure 1 was issued pursuant to any proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Act. His assertion is that it is for the petitioner to produce the document and assail the validity of Annexure 1. On the contrary, the specific assertion of, the petitioner throughout is that Annexure 1 has been issued without initiating any proceeding under the Act and inspite of repeated requests the copies of the orders passed in the alleged, proceedings have not been made available to him. 8. Under the facts and the circumstances of the cases, I am constrained to hold that Annexure 1 has been prepared without taking resort to the statutory provisions under the Act and accordingly, it is quashed. All subsequent orders passed and notices issued on the basis of Annexure-1 are held to be bad and illegal. 9. This writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to cost.