IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5417 of 2011 AMARENDRA KUMAR JHA SON OF LATE JAI MANGAL JHA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SIHO, P.S. SAKARA DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION MUZAFFARPUR 3. THE COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARPUR 5. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, EAST MUZAFFARPUR 6. SURESH NARAIN THAKUR, SON OF LATE JAGAT THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HARPUR KISHUN, P.S. SAKRA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :Mr. V.K.Singh For the State :Mr. Amrendra Kumar, AC to GP ----------- 02. 30.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 27.09.2006, passed by Respondent-Commissioner in Case No. 104-Ceiling Revision/2006/Case No.-112-Ceiling Revision/2006 (Amrendra Kumar Jha vs. Suresh Narain Thakur & State of Bihar). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order impugned refusing to revive the revision application was passed without affording opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the facts stated in restoration petition was considered and having noticed that earlier on an application preferred on behalf of the petitioner, the revision application(s) 2 were withdrawn as not pressed, the authority has passed the impugned order which does not require interference. Brief facts of the case may be stated as under: The father of the petitioner by reason of 02 sale deeds executed on 03.02.2003 purchased 17 ½ and 16 ½ decimals of land appertaining to khata no.01, khesra no. 2147. The pre-emptor (respondent no.6) instituted two proceedings being Land Ceiling Pre-emption Case Nos. 46/02-03/47/02-03. The Respondent-DCLR by order dated 02.08.2003 (Annexure- 1), allowed the claim of respondent no.6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the father of the petitioner filed two appeal being Appeal Nos. 15/2003 and 16/2003. By order dated 14.08.2006 (Annexure-2), the appellate court/authority dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved over by the aforesaid common order dated 14.08.2006, the writ petitioner filed Revision No. 104/2006 and 112/2006. The revisional court by the order impugned, dismissed the said application. Relevant part of the order dated 27.09.2006, passed by Respondent-Commissioner reads as under: “A restoration petition was filed on 21.9.2006 in this case. The learned lawyer argue that withdrawal petition was filed by Junior Lawyer and was not pressed but was accepted. He further argues that the case may be restored under order 9 Rule 4 of CPC and rule 49 of Bihar Land Ceiling Rules.” It thus appears that earlier to the aforesaid order, the application was permitted to be withdrawn on an application filed on behalf of the writ petitioner. The said order has not even 3 been enclosed with the writ petition. This Court in view of the reasons assigned in the order as also taking into account the facts that the said order was passed on 27.09.2006 and the present writ petition has been filed in this Court on 24.03.2011, is of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for invocation of extra-ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction of the Court. Accordingly the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )