IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11247 of 2010 PREMA DEVI, W/O SRI LALDEO RAI, R/O VILLAGE PAHARPUR CHANDPURA, P.S-JUDAWANPUR, ANCHAL- RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, PATNA, BIHAR. 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/COLLECTOR, VAISHALI. 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. 4. SATRUGHAN RAM, S/O LATE BANKU RAM, R/O VILLAGE PAHARPUR, P.S. JUDAWANPUR, ANCHAL- RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. ----------- 05 07.12.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who claims himself to be the purchaser from the recorded tenant namely, Dev Saran Rai and Ramchandra Rai by reason of a sale deed dated 26.10.2009 (Annexure-2), is aggrieved by order dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure-1) passed by respondent Circle Officer as well as the preparation of Form-G, in the name of private respondent no.4, who was found a privileged tenant under the impugned order and settled the land in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that there has been breach of Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It is next contended that the there is no finding in the impugned order (Annexure-1) that respondent no.4 is/was a privileged tenant and, therefore, eligible for settlement of the land measuring 4 decimals which stood transferred in favour of the writ petitioner. Referring to the impugned order, it is next submitted that there is no finding in the order of the respondent 2 Circle Officer that notices were issued and served either upon the vendor of the petitioner or the petitioner. On these submissions learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the impugned order. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of State, on the other hand, submitted that the Act itself provides remedy. He drew attention of the Court to Section 21 of the Act, which reads as under:- “21. Power of the Collector of the District to call for and examine records- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or authority; the Collector of the district may on his own motion or on the application of any party, or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine record of any case decided or proceeding taken by the Collector under the Act for satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding or to the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the Collector under the Act in the case or proceeding, and may after, allowing the parties concerned opportunity of being heard, direct that the case or the proceeding be re-opened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the order itself is wholly without jurisdiction, this Court may exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner should first exhaust the remedy provided under the Act. He may, therefore, approach the respondent Collector assailing the order(s) which 3 has been impugned before this Court. Accordingly, the present application is being disposed of by the following order:- Petitioner may file appropriate application under Section 21 of the Act before the respondent Collector within a period of 05 weeks from today. If the said application is filed within the aforesaid time, the respondent Collector shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit within a reasonable time. Till the application is filed before the respondent Collector, status quo in respect of the land(s) in question shall be maintained. Respondent Collector may thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law based on the materials/pleadings placed before him. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)