IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2290 of 2010 1. MD.JALAL, S/O- Late Gharro, 2. Md. Khalil – do- 3. Md. Arit – do – all residents of Village- Kajlaita, P.S. & Anchal- Jokihat, District- Araria (Bihar). 4. Bibi Ajmerun, W/o- Md. Jahangir Alam, resident of Village- Kajlaita, P.S. and Anchal- Jokihat, District- Araria (Bihar). --- (Applicants U/S 48 D (Respondents Ist Party in Appeal) – Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector (D.M.) of District- Araria. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria. 4. The Anchala Adhikari (C.O.), Jokihat, District- Araria :-- Respondents Ist Set. 5. Md. Abdul Kadir, S/o- Late Safid. 6. Bibi Halimo, D/o- Late Safid. 7. Bibi Habiya – do- All at Sl. Nos. 5 to 7 are residents of Village- Kajleta, P.S. & Anchal- Jokihat, District- Araria. ---- (Opp.Party U/S 48 D)--- (Appellants) :-- Respondents 2nd set. 8. Bibi Saliman, D/o- Late Jahangir Alam, 9. Bibi Rahmati, W/o- Zamir Akhtar, 10. Bibi Nahida Khatoon, D/o- Zamir Akhtar, All at Sl. Nos. 8 to 10 are residents of Village- Kajleta, P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria. --- (Respondents 2nd Party in Appeal)---Respondents 3rd Set. ----------- 2. 09.02.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners who claim to have acquired the occupancy rights over the lands in-question by way of inheritance are aggrieved by the order dated 12.8.2009 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, Annexure-4, whereunder he has allowed the appeal filed by the Raiyat contesting respondent and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 48 D of the B.T. Act vide case no. 9/03-04 on the ground that the lis which is raised in the present case has already been adjudicated by the competent court in case no. 13 and 14 of 1992-93 between the same parties, contesting respondents are found in possession of lands in-question as their house and sahan is situate over 3 decimal part of the disputed land measuring 7 decimal and in support of possession they have produced rent receipts. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order as I see substance in the reasons recorded in support of the impugned order. 3. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)