IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15579 of 2001 SUSHIL YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : M/S Shashi Nath Jha, Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dhurnedra Kumar(JC to SC-V), Advocte. ----------- 03. 25.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and the counsel for private respondents. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8.10.2001 passed by the Collector, Araria in Case No. 57 of 1997-98, Annexure-4 whereunder Purcha granted to the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) framed thereunder in compliance of the orders of the Circle Officer, Bhargama, Araria, Collector under the Act dated 29.10.1997 passed in Basgit Purcha Case No 75 of 1997- 98 as contained in Annexures- 1 and 2 has been cancelled. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that having cancelled the Purcha, the Collector, Araria while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Act should have remitted the matter to the Collector under the Act for fresh consideration. When such submission was raised this Court called upon the learned counsel for - 2 - the petitioner to inform this the landlord under whom, petitioner claimed Purcha then the counsel submitted that the Purcha has been claimed against the State as petitioner and his other family members possessing less than one acre of land and have raised their houses over the Government land bearing Plot No. 3113 and in recognition of the fact that they have already raised their houses application was made for grant of Purcha which was granted with reference to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 3. Perusal of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act and Rule 3 indicate that Purcha is granted to a privileged tenant to ensure that the tenant is not ejected from his homestead by the landlord. Protection under the Act cannot be availed for occupying the lands of the State. In the circumstances, I do not see any illegality in the order dated 8.10.2001, Annexure-4 and this writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)