IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.355 of 2011 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10116 of 2002 ====================================================== Prem Prakash Arya .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prem Prakash Arya(In Pers For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== 2 11-07-2011 Heard the parties. The writ Court by the order under appeal dated 23.4.2009 has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing C.W.J.C. No. 10116 of 2002 after noticing that he has raised his grievance against an order of D.C.L.R., Sikarahna dated 19.6.2002 directly before this Court without availing the statutory appeal provided under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus) Act. The matter has arisen out of preemption proceedings under Section 16 (3) of the aforesaid Act and admittedly provision for appeal is available in the Act. The petitioner, an advocate, appears in person. It is submitted that now the Appellant Authority is not the Collector of the District but Divisional Commissioner. In that view of the matter, it is clarified that the petitioner appellant would be at liberty to prefer appeal before the appropriate Appellate Authority. A grievance was raised on behalf of the appellant that an affidavit filed in support of his case by another Advocate to show as to how events took place in the court of D.C.L.R. on 12.7.2002 was not considered by the Appellate Court. On going through the order under appeal we find that after noticing that events of the case as recorded by the D.C.L.R. in the order-sheet, the writ Court has mentioned that such facts have been controverted by the petitioner but it remains oath against oath and such disputed question of facts cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. In that view of the matter and especially when matter remains to be considered by the Appellate Authority, it would not be proper to go into details of facts. However, it has been pointed out that in paragraph 7 of order under appeal, the sale deed against which preemption has been claimed is noted to have been executed on 15.10.2001. The appellant has submitted that the correct date of execution of sale-deed is 17.10.2001 as would appear from Annexure-8 to the writ petition. In case 15.10.2001 is not the date of execution of the sale deed then the same may be treated as a typographical error and may be read as 17.10.2001. It is further clarified that the writ Court or this appellate Court has not gone into merit of the matter. Therefore, any observation made in the order of the writ Court or this Court shall not adversely affect or prejudice the claim of the parties which will be decided of the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of. If the appellant “petitioner” approaches the Appellate Authority within 30 days from today along with an application under Limitation Act for condonation of appeal on the ground of pendency of the matter in this Court, such application shall be considered favourably and in accordance with law so that the real dispute between the parties may be decided on merit. Mahesh Kumar Choudhary/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)