ORDER : (Deepak Roshan, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting-aside the order dated 21.01.2023 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi (respondent no.2) in SAR Appeal Case No. 02 of 2019-20 whereby the Additional Collector, Ranchi has dismissed the SAR Appeal Case No. 02 of 2019-20 on merit in absence of the petitioner and has affirmed the order dated 14.06.2018/06.07.2019 passed by the LRDC in SAR Case No. 09 of 2008-09. 3. At the outset, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing this case on merits. He further submits that initially a case was filed being SAR Case No. 09 of 2008-09 which was decided against the petitioner. Thereafter, he filed an appeal being SAR Appeal Case No. 02 of 2019-20. He further draws attention of this Court towards the impugned order at Annexure-7 and submits that on that particular day i.e. the date of hearing; due to some reason or the other, the appellant could not appear before the said Court and the said Court only after hearing the opposite party has dismissed the case of the petitioner/appellant on merits though he was not empowered to decide the case on merit in view of Section 220 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short, the Act). Accordingly, learned counsel submits that the impugned order may be quashed and set-aside and the matter may be remitted back to the concerned Additional Collector to decide the case on merit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid fact that on the said date of hearing, the petitioner/appellant was not present. However, he submits that since the order has been passed by the Additional Collector; as such, there is a provision of revision before the Commissioner. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the only issue to be decided in the instant writ application is “whether the Additional Collector was empowered to decide the case on merit in view of Section 220 of the Act”. For brevity Section 220 of the Act is quoted hereinbelow: “220. 5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the only issue to be decided in the instant writ application is “whether the Additional Collector was empowered to decide the case on merit in view of Section 220 of the Act”. For brevity Section 220 of the Act is quoted hereinbelow: “220. Appeal when to be heard.-(1) The Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, shall fix a day for hearing the appeal, and shall cause notice of the same to be served on the respondent. (2). If on the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear in person or by agent, the appeal shall be dismissed for default. (3.) If on such day the appellant appears and the respondent does not appear in person or by agent, the appeal shall be heard ex-parte.” 6. After going through the aforesaid provision, it is crystal clear that if on the date of hearing; the appellant does not appear in person or by his agent, the appeal shall be dismissed for default. However, after perusing the impugned order it appears that though in the concluding portion of its order the concerned officer has observed that the appellant is not taking interest in the case, however, he has dismissed the case on merit. Therefore, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that the concerned officer was not empowered to decide the case on merit. Accordingly, the stand of the respondent that there is a provision of revision is not accepted by the Court because when the case itself has not been decided on merit then asking the appellant to file a revision before the Commissioner will amount to reducing one forum which has been enshrined under the Act. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application is hereby allowed. The case is remitted back to the appellate authority. It is made clear that the concerned authority shall re-hear the case after giving proper opportunity to the parties including this petitioner and pass an order in accordance with law within a period of six months. 8. As a result, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.A, if any, also stands disposed of.