IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3724 of 2003 1. MOSTT.SABUJAN WIFE OF LATE IBRAHIM MIAN 2. MD. ZEAUL MUSTAFA, SON OF LATE IBRAHIM MIAN 3. MAULANA ALTAF HUSSAIN, SON OF LATE IBRAHIM MIAN ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- REOTITH, P.S.- BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ ….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR OF DISTRICT GOPALGANJ, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ 3. THE S.D.O. GOPALGANJ, P.S. AND DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BAIKUNTHPUR, P.S.- BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ 5. MD. YAQOOB ANSARI, SON OF LATE BARKAT ANSARI 6. BABUJAN MIAN, SON OF LATE BARKAT ANSARI RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- REOTITH, P.S.- BAIKUNTHPUR, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ ….. RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioners:- Mr. Rashid Alam, Advocate For the Respondent No.5 :- Kamala Pd. Roy, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Dhirendra Kumar A.C. to S.C.-5 04 06.08.2009 Heard Mr. Rashid Alam for the petitioners, Mr. Kamala Pd. Roy, for the respondent no.5 and Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, for the State. The writ petitioners have challenged the order of the Anchal Adhikari granting Homestead Purcha in favour of the respondent no.5 under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 with respect to 1 katha 5 dhurs of lands, appertaining to khata no. 809 and khesra no. 2011 by the order dated 26.12.2000 as 2 contained in Annexure-3 of this writ application, as well as order dated 23.12.2002 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj in Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Revision Case No. 3 of 2001 confirming the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that land was previously settled by land- lord in favour of husband of petitioner no.1 and father of petitioner nos.2 and 3 and upon which Jamabandi has also been created by the State of Bihar and they were paying rent. But without consideration of all those facts the Collector has rejected the revision filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he was found to be entitled for Homestead Purcha as will be apparent from the aforesaid impugned order and the petitioners have not been able to produce any document in support of their claim even before this Court. Having heard the rival submissions and on perusal of records of this case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners failed to produce any document in support of their claim before the authority. Even before this Court also nothing has been produced on their behalf to substantiate their case. Earlier 3 opportunity was granted to the petitioners by order dated 2.11.2002 to produce the certified/original order-sheets or documents before this Court in support of their claim, but till date nothing has been produced. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the writ petitioners have miserably failed to make out a proper claim with regard to the lands in dispute as well as to show that the purcha was illegally granted by the authorities. Thus, this Court also does not find any illegality in the orders impugned. As a result, this writ application fails and is dismissed. P.K. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)