Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The petitioners pray to quash the notification under Sec. 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), as contained in Annexure-3, acquiring 37.89 Acres of lands showing them as belonging to the petitioner No. 1, as well as the order dated 29-6-1983 as contained in Annexure 4 passed by the Collector, Saharsa (Respondent No. 1) dropping Misc. Ceiling Case No. 43 of 1982-83/29 of 1983-84 on account of absence of the petitioner. 2. Land Ceiling Case No. 278 of 1976 was started by the Additional Collector, Saharsa (Respondent No. 2) against petitioner No. 1 for determining his ceiling area. The draft statement was published in regard to 55.27 acres of lands. Petitioner No. 1 filed objection under Sec. 10(3) of the Act, as contained in Annexure-1. One of the objections was that he had gifted 25.27 acres of lands by registered deeds of gift dated 17-(sic)-1972 to petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 within the time granted under the Act and that the transfeiees had got their names mutated and that their names were also recorded in the current survey. The objections were disposed of by the Collector, Saharsa (respondent No. 1) by his order dated 11-4-1982, who declared 37.89 acres of land as surplus. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 were not served with notices. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 filed an appeal before the Collector, Saharsa under Sec. 37 read with Sec. 45 of the Act. They also filed an application under Sec. 45-B of the Act for re-opening the case which was registered as Land Ceiling Misc. Case No. 43 of 1982-83/29 of 1983-84 which, however, was dropped by order as contained in Annexure-4 without deciding it on merit. An application has also been filed on behalf of five persons praying to add them parties to this writ petition claiming title in the lands in question. 3. Mr. Rajeeva Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that respondent No. 1 has committed an error of law in passing his order as contained in Annexure-4. The proceeding ought not to have been dropped rather adjudicated on its merit. He further submits that the said case, in fact, was an appeal which could not have been dismissed for default. 4. The proceeding ought not to have been dropped rather adjudicated on its merit. He further submits that the said case, in fact, was an appeal which could not have been dismissed for default. 4. I do not find any merit in either of the submissions made by Mr. Roy. 5. No doubt the statement made in Paragraph 13 of the writ application shows that an appeal was filed by the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 before the Collector, Saharsa but it does not appear that the alleged appeal was registered as Ceiling Misc. Case No. 43 of 1982-S3/29 of 1983-84 has mentioned in Annexure-4 to this application. From Paragraph 17 of the writ application it appears that an application was filed by petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 for re-opening the proceeding under Sec. 45-B of the Act. 6. Rule 49 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) runs as follows: 49. Procedure for disposal of appeal under the Act [Sub-section (2) of Section 3].--The procedure to be followed by the appellate authority in disposing of appelas under the Act, shall, so far as may be practicable, be the same as provided for Civil Appeals under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908). A bare perusal of the aforementioned rules shows that the provisions of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be followed for disposing of the appeals filed under the Act. Rule 17(1) of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as follows: (1) Where on the day fixed, for any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed. It is thus clear that an appeal can be dismissed for default if the appellant does not appear when it is called out for hearing. 7 From the order dated 29-6-1983 (Annexure-4) it appers that the petitioners were absent on that day and they had remained absent for the last many dates. In the aforementioned view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Roy that the Collector, Saharsa lacked jurisdiction in dropping the proceedings. 8. 7 From the order dated 29-6-1983 (Annexure-4) it appers that the petitioners were absent on that day and they had remained absent for the last many dates. In the aforementioned view of the matter, it is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Roy that the Collector, Saharsa lacked jurisdiction in dropping the proceedings. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any merit, in this writ application. It is accordingly dismissed but without cost. 9. For the same reason, I do not find any necessity to add five persons as party to this writ application as well and that application is also dismissed. 10. Before, I part, I clarify that this judgment order should not be interpreted to mean that even if a proper case is made out by the petitioners for restoration of the case, that prayer cannot be allowed.