JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order contained in annexures 1' to 3' passed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 dismissing the application of the petitioner under the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that respondent no. 5 executed four mortgage bonds in his favour the details of which, have been mentioned in paragraph 3 of the writ application. Respondent no. 5 filed Case no. 187/81 of (Rehan) in the court of the Dy. Collector incharge Land Reforms, Sasaram (respondent no. 4) claiming redemption of full satisfaction by virtue of expiry of 7 years from the date of the execution of the said mortgage deeds. The petitioner appeared and filed his show cause in which it was contended that by notification no S.O. 207 dated 13.2.1981 published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) no. 204 dated 13.2.1981 small land holders have been exempted from the purview of section 12 of the Act and as such, the petitioner being small land holder holding 5 acres of land is entitled for the exemption from the rigours of section 12 of the Act. The general law under the Transfer of Property Act is applicable regarding the said mortgage bonds. 3. It appears that the D.C.L.R., Rohtas (Sasaram) (Respondent no. 4) called for a report from the Circle Officer and on the basis of the said report, which according to the petitioner, was received by respondent no. 4 on 13.4.1982, passed the order on 14.4.1982 without any notice or giving any opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case. Further, it appears that against the said order, the petitioner moved the Additional Collector, Sasaram (Respondent no. 3) in revision being Rehan Redemption Revision no. 10/1982-85 challenging the correctness of the order and he claims to have produced a number of documents including R.S. Khatian, affidavit, Choukidari receipts, canal purchas and some Sada receipts granted by the mortgagor in respect of payment of water tax etc. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Respondent no. 4) passed the said order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case. He further contended that the Additional Collector (respondent no. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Respondent no. 4) passed the said order without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case. He further contended that the Additional Collector (respondent no. 3) also without considering the aforesaid contention dismissed the said revision by order dated 3.9.92, a true copy whereof has been annexed as annexure 2 to the writ petition. 5. No counter affidavit has been filed in the present case. However, respondent no. 5 has appeared through Mr. Amarendra Nath Tiwary, learned Advocate, who contended that the two authorities namely, D.C.L.R. and the Additional Collector have considered the report of the Circle Officer as also the documents which were produced on behalf of the petitioner, at the revision stage, such as, the affidavit, Chowkidari receipts, canal purchas and some saada receipts. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel that the said submission also find support from the impugned order passed by the Addl. Collector (annex-2). Mr. Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 also submitted that though there is no provision for taking into consideration the documents produced at the revisional stage, yet from the reading of the said order it would appear that he had taken into consideration the documents produced by the petitioner. 6. I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5 that the Additional Collector has considered all the documents referred to in paragraph 8 of the writ application. However, as the fact stated in the writ application that the report was received on 13th April, 1982 by the D.C.L.R. and he passed the order on the very next day even without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence to rebut the said report has not been disputed. In my opinion the order passed by the D.C.L.R. on this ground alone called for interference by the Additional Collector. 7. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed and the orders contained in annexures 1 to 3 are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the D.C.L.R. (respondent no. 4) for reconsideration of the matter on the basis of the materials which are already on the records of the case, in accordance with law and after giving due notice to the parties concerned.