Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos 4 and 5 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The petitioner has originally filed this application for quashing An-nexure 3, letter dated 24-12-1992 order by the Block Development Officer, pakur (respondent No.3), by which he has communicated the direction of the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2) to the Mukhya of Bishampur grampanchayat to construction the house of respondents No.4 and 5 over the land of plot No.162 in Village Khaprajola, P. S. Pakur, Subsequently he filed an amended application by which he has prayed for quashing Annexure 9 which is a parcha granted in favour of respondents no.4 and 5 under the provision of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) 3. The facts which are necessary for disposal of this present application are that the petitioners claim plot No.162 by virtue of the settlement and they have filed certain documents along with the writ application which prima facie shows that they have interest in the land. Their grievance is that the respondent authorities have taken steps to construct the house of respondent Nos.4 and 5 over a part of the aforesaid plot without plot without following the procedure prescribed under the law inasmuch as granting parcha to them they have taken steps for the construction of the house over the land of the petitioner without notice to him. Later on they have granted a parcha as contained in Annexure 9 without following the procedure prescribed under the provision of the Act. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos 4 and 5 wherein it has been asserted for the land in question belong to Dashrath mishra, and not to the petitioner and as such the petitioner cannot have any grievance even if construction is made made or parcha is grantee to respondents No.4 and 5. With regard to the land in question. 5. After hearing the learned counsel parties and going through the record so it is to be stated at the very outside that if the land belong to particular citizen then he cannot be deprived of the said land without following the procedure prescribed under the law. With regard to the land in question. 5. After hearing the learned counsel parties and going through the record so it is to be stated at the very outside that if the land belong to particular citizen then he cannot be deprived of the said land without following the procedure prescribed under the law. Any authority, however, list he may be, has no power of jurisdiction to forceably take away the land of a citizen without following The procedure prescribed under the law. In this case from the perusal of the Annexure 3 it is clear that even before grant of parcha the steps were taken by the respondent authority to construct a house of respondents No.4 and 5 under the land in question which is in our view cannot be supported in law. However, it is not necessary to deal with this question for the reasons that admittedly now the parcha has been granted in favour of respondents No 4 and 5 and unless that parcha is held to be illegal the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 6. The question as to whether the parcha has been granted to respondents no.4 and 5 in accordance with law. Nothing he has been brought on the record on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 to show that before granting parcha any notice was issued to the petitioner From the material brought on the record it appears that the petitioner has been recorded as raiyat in the Government records with regard to the land in question. A copy of Jamabandi has been annexed as Annexure 1 to this writ application. It has been mentioned in the report of the Panchayat Sewak (Annexure 2)that the land in question belongs to the petitioner and his co-sharers and in such a situation prima facie the petitioner is an interested person and without notice to him no parcha could have been granted to respondents no 4 and 5. An elaborate procedure has been provided under the provision of the rules framed under the Act which has to be followed by the authority at the time of granting parcha. In this connection it may be mentioned that rule 5 of the rules apart from other things, requires not to be the interested person local inspection by the concerned authority and recording a memo of evidence. In this connection it may be mentioned that rule 5 of the rules apart from other things, requires not to be the interested person local inspection by the concerned authority and recording a memo of evidence. There is nothing on the record to so that the procedure under rule 5 of the rules has been followed before granting parcha to the respondents 4 and 5. Accordingly the direction as contained in Annexure 3 for construction of a house and granting of parcha as contained in Annexure 9 are quashed. 7. It is made clear that it will be open for the respondent authority to initiate a proceeding under the provision of the Bihar Privileged Persons homestead Tenancy Act and after notice to the concerned parties pass an order in accordance with law or take steps to settle the land or take any other steps which are permissible in law. 8. In the result, this application is allowed with the aforesaid observation. Application allowed.