IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.48 of 2009 HARISHCHANDRA SINGH S/O LATE DEO NATH SINGH R/O VILLAGE BELWASA, P.S. ANDAR, DIST- SIWAN ………PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, SIWAN 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, ANDAR CIRCLE,P.S.ANDAR,DIST-SIWAN 4. JOGENDRA SINGH S/O LATE GANESH SINGH 5. MADHURI DEVI W/O JOGENDRA SINGH 6. RAMA SHANKER SINGH S/O LATE DEONATH SINGH 7. PAWAN KUMAR RAI SON OF LATE RAJ BANSHI RAI 8. MOST. KUNTI KUER W/O LATE SWAMINATH RAI, RESP.NOS.4 TO 8 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELWASA, P.S. ANDAR, DIST.- SIWAN ----------- RESPONDENTS. ------------ For the Appellant : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, J.C. to S.C.V. ------------- 2. 14.01.2009 Reg: I.A.No. 185 of 2009 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands allowed. Now we take up the appeal on merit. Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by a portion of the order dated 9.9.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 7007 of 2001 remitting the matter back to the Circle Officer, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner-appellant challenged the order 2 granting parcha to respondent nos.4 and 5 under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order had set aside the settlement made in favour of respondent nos.4 and 5 and remitted the matter back to the Circle Officer for reconsideration in accordance with law. While doing so, it observed as follows : “Until local inspection is held and final orders are passed, the status quo as existing today shall be maintained. While passing the order, the Circle Officer shall consider the documents of the parties so as to record a finding as to whether Private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were privileged persons on the date of filing of their application.” It is that portion of order of the learned Single Judge, by which he had remitted the matter back to the Cirlcle Officer for consideration and maintaining status quo till the final decision with which the appellant is aggrieved. Mrs. Madhuri Lata, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the private respondents are not the privileged persons and, as such, the learned Judge ought not to have remitted the matter back before the Circle Officer. We are not inclined to go into this plea of the appellant in the present proceeding. Appellant shall be at liberty to raise this plea before the Circle Officer itself. Needless to state that in case such a plea is raised, the Circle Officer shall consider the same in accordance with law. 3 Appeal stands dismissed with the observation aforesaid. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Narendra/