IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1985 of 2010 1. Md.Naiyar Alam S/o Nabi Hassan 2. Md. Mahim, S/o Nabi Hassan 3. Md. Azim @ Md. Azimuddin, S/o Nabi Hassan, all are residents of village- Domeriya, P.S. Mahalgaon, District – Araria (Bihar). Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector of the District, Araria 3. The Additional Collector, Araria 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (DCLR), Araria 5. The Anchala Adhikari, Jokihat, Araria.. Respondent Ist party 6. Rizwan Alam S/o Late Shaique Ahmad 7. Imran Ahmad, S/o Late Shaique Ahmad 8. Jubair Ahmad, S/o of Late Sajjad Ahmad 9. Bibi Rashina Khatoon W/o Azaz Ahmad, all are residents of village- Domariya, P.S. Mahalgaon, District Araria…. Respondent second party 02/ 04.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 7.11.2009, passed by the Additional Collector, Araria in Case No. 24 of 2000-01/ 20 of 2005-06/63 of 2007-08, as contained in Annexure-6, whereunder he has set aside the order dated 18.1.2001, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria, as contained in Annexure-4, declaring the petitioners as Bataidars of the lands in question with direction to distribute 5/20th share in the produce to the raiyat. Aforesaid order was challenged by the transferee raiyat Respondent Second Set on the ground that petitioners were not capable of being Bataidars of the lands in question as on the date of dispute, they were minor and were not in a position to till the lands. The appellate court having found the aforesaid submission to be correct, has set aside the order holding that the petitioners being minor, could not have been Bataidars of the lands in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the said order - 2 - on the ground that even a minor can be the Bataidar through his father and grandfather and in the instant case, it was their father and grandfather, who were actually tilling the lands and distributing the usufruct with the landlord/ tenant of the land. 4. No such case was ever pleaded before the original or appellate authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the appeal filed by the respondent second set should not have been entertained for their failure to produce the sale deed dated 19.7.1984 on the basis of which they claim raiyati right over the lands in question as according to the petitioner the sale deed dated 19.7.1984 was cancelled by the vendor. Aforesaid submission was rejected by the appellate court in view of the report of the Circle Officer, bearing letter no. 504 dated 27.7.2009 as respondent second set were found in cultivating possession of lands in question on the basis of purchase made by them. 6. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain such case in the writ jurisdiction and the writ application is dismissed. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)