JUDGMENT : Counsel for the petitioners is absent. 2. Heard Mr. Shamim Akhtar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for the following reliefs:- “For a direction for quashing the order dated 17.07.2001 (Annexure-8) passed by the Respondent, Deputy Commissioner and whereby and whereunder in a proceeding relating to cancellation of Jamabandi which was itself against the statutory provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, an order of cancellation of settlement under section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been passed although, no proceeding under section 4 (h) was ever initiated nor any notice for cancellation of settlement was ever issued or served either upon the settlee or the petitioners who are the purchaser from the settlee by virtue of registered sell seed and subsequently their mutation application was allowed evident from the correction slip provided to them they have been paying rent to the State, more ever in respect of said land a settlement case has been instituted by one Sukra Oraon that was decided on 04.03.1959 (Annexure-1) in favour of Ex-landlord settlee. The respondents ought to have taken into consideration that in respect of said Khata plot a title suit had been filed as Title Suit No.280/34 of 1964-65, finally decided on 29.06.1965, decided in favour of plaintiff, then settlee preferred appeal in the said matter vide title appeal no.59/6 of 1965-66, which was decided in favour of the settlee ex-landlord and decree was passed, declaring title in favour of settlee, even though the respondents dare to proceed and passed the said order. The respondents also ought to have considered the provisions laid down in such matter in Bihar Tenants holding maintenance (maintenance of record Act 1973).” 4. From the records of the case it appears that the petitioners have specifically stated in paragraph no.37 of the writ petition that the said proceeding was initiated only in the matter of one Jagarnath Prasad and one Shankar Uday Narayan Tiwari, so far as petitioners are concerned, they had not been made party in the said matter and neither any notice was served upon them nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to them. 5. 5. At this, counsel for the respondents submits that although from the records it appears that no notice was issued, but certainly they have the alternative remedy to appeal under the provisions of Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 read with Rule 4(B)(ii) of Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951. 6. Counsel for the respondents further submits that under the provisions of Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, there is requirement of issuance of notice only to the 1st settlee or transferee. It is submitted that if the land is settled after 01.01.1946 or transferred after 01.01.1946 there is no requirement of issuance of notice so far as subsequent transferees are concerned, who might have purchased the property even by way of registered sale-deed and even if the mutation was already done in their favour and accordingly, there was no requirement to issue notice so far as these petitioners are concerned as they are subsequent purchasers. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that the counsel for the petitioners is not appearing before this Court, this court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the petitioners are permitted to file appeal against the impugned order, if so advised. Considering the fact that the proceeding under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act,1950 appears to have been initiated after the property involved in this case were transferred to the petitioners and after their names were mutated in the revenue records and considering the fact that the rights of the petitioners are affected by virtue of the order passed under Section 4(h) of the Act, the contention of the counsel for the respondents that no notice was required to be issued to the petitioners being subsequent transfrees and notice was required to be issued only to the 1st settlee or transferee after 01.01.1946 is hereby rejected. Thus it is hereby directed that if the appeal is filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority the same will not be dismissed on the ground of maintainability on the point that the petitioners were not required to be issued notice by the authority while passing the impugned order. Thus it is hereby directed that if the appeal is filed by the petitioners before the appellate authority the same will not be dismissed on the ground of maintainability on the point that the petitioners were not required to be issued notice by the authority while passing the impugned order. The petitioners are granted liberty to file the appeal against the impugned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if such appeal is filed the appellate authority shall decide the case on its merits after giving adequate opportunity of hearing and after considering the materials on record including the materials that may be produced by the petitioners before the appellate authority within a period of six months from the date of filing of the appeal. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid liberty to the petitioners. 9. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the counsel appearing for the parties.