IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.136 of 2010 1. Srikant Das 2. Chandrakant Das 3. Ramakant Das, all sons of late Bishnu Ram Das, resident of Village-Dholbazza, Police Station-Forbesganj, District- Araria. ------- Petitioners/Appellants. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Forbesganj, District- Araria 3. The Circle Officer, Forbeshganj Anchal, District- Araria. 4. Shri Ram Narayan Mehta, son of Shri Shoukhi Lal Mehta, resident of Village-Mushahari, Police Station- Forbesganj, District- Araria ---- Respondents—Respondents. ----------- 2. 21.01.2011 Heard Mr. A.K. Mallick for the appellants. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred against the order dated 16.9.2009, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14385 of 2003, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The appellants, who were three petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 14385 of 2003, seek quashing of the order dated 26.11.1999, passed by the Circle Officer, Forbesganj Anchal, District- Araria in Case no.562 of 1978-79 as well as the order dated 15.12.2002, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Forbesganj Anchal, District- Araria in Appeal No.10 of 1999-2000, whereby occupancy right with respect to the 2 land in question was declared in favour of respondent no.4 of the writ application. The appellants submit that the land in question initially belonged to one Matuklal Das and Bishun Ram Das. The appellants belong to the branch of Bishnu Ram Das. They inherited less than five acres of land and as such no occupancy right can be declared on their land, in favour of respondent no.4 or any of one of his family members in view of Section 48C of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellants Submit that the learned Single Judge overlooked that the family consisted of 12 members and on a notional partition on the date of declaration, a member would have got less than five acres of irrigated land and 10 acres of non-irrigated land. We find that the learned Single Judge noticed that Bishnu Ram Das, the father of the three appellants, admitted that he had 31.74 acres of irrigated land and 26.31 acres of unirrigated land. Thus the learned Single Judge observed that if lands are divided equally amongst the share of the appellants than more than five acres of land would come to the share of each of the appellants. We also find that the learned Single Judge found that case of appellants are not 3 covered under Explanation No. IV of Section 48C of the Act. This Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, as such, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar J. ) ( S.P. Singh, J.)