IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.8820 OF 2009 VIJAY SINGH, SON OF LATE BISHUN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAE GONDER BIGHA, POLICE STATION HASHUA, DISTRICT NAWADA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, HISUA (NAWADA) 4. MOMINA KHATUN, WIFE OF LATE ABDUL KAYUM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GONDER BIGHA, POLICE STATION HASHUA, DISTRICT NAWADA ………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******** 2 28/07/2009 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.07.2009 passed by the Collector, Nawada by which he has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioner claiming that he is a recorded raiyat of the land and is in possession over the said lands being his homestead land and BAGICHA. The Collector has dismissed the application on the ground that basgit purcha has been granted by the Circle Officer, Hisua and the petitioner is not in possession over the lands in question. The petitioner has annexed the repot of the Amin which is addressed to the Circle Officer, Hisua. The report of the Amin indicates that the petitioner has his house over the said lands and also has piece of land on which he has orchard. The private respondent, namely, Momina Khatun is not shown to be in possession over the lands in question. This Court is not issuing notice to the respondent - 2 - no. 4 in view of the order this Court intend to pass. The Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) deals with the manner in which the basgit purchas have to be granted. Sub-section (i) of Section 2 of the Act described a privileged person which reads as follows :- (i) “privileged person” means a person- (1) who is not a proprietor, tenure-holder, under-tenure-holder, or a mahajan; and (2) who, besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre; It may be that respondent no. 4 Momina Khatun may be a privileged person under sub-clause (2) of Clause (i) of Section 2 of the Act, but to be granted purcha for a raiyati land, she has to be shown to be a “privileged tenant” and unless respondent no. 4 comes within the category of a privileged tenant, she would not be entitled to grant of a purcha. Clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act describes a privileged tenant, which reads as follows :- (j) “privileged tenant” means a privileged person who holds homestead under another person and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for such homestead to such person; It prima facie appears to this Court on the basis of the report of the Amin that respondent no. 4 is not a - 3 - privileged tenant within the meaning of the Act as she is not in occupation or shown to be under-raiyat on the lands in question. I, therefore, direct the Collector of Nawada District to reconsider the matter by issuing notice to both the parties and examine whether the respondent no. 4 would come within the definition of a “privileged tenant”. For this purpose, the Collector may hold a fresh enquiry through the Circle Officer, Hisua after ensuring that the parties are noticed at the time of such an enquiry and spot verification and then pass an order after hearing the parties. The procedure aforesaid should be completed within a period of four months on receipt/production of a copy of this order. Accordingly, I quash the order dated 13.07.2009 passed by the Collector, Nawada in Case no. 98(M)/2008(24)(N). This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )