IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4996 of 2007 Javed Alam Prakash, Son of Late Nijmuddin, resident of village- Ghataro, P.S.- Rauta, District- Purnia. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Purnia. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Purnia. 4. The Anchala Adhikari, Baisa Anchal, District- Purnia. ... Respondents. ----------- 07- 27.1.2009 Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha for the petitioner, and learned junior counsel to Ms. Kumari Amrita, Standing Counsel No.1 (Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.3.2007 (Annexure-7), passed by the learned Collector of the District of Purnia, in Misc. Land Ceiling Case No.23 of 1999 (Javed Alam Prakash and others Vs. State of Bihar and others), whereby he has rejected the appeal preferred by the present petitioner. 2. Land Ceiling proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961, was initiated against the petitioner. He claimed to be a major on 9.9.1970. He further claimed that he had received in gift certain lands from his father by way of deed of gift executed on 19.3.1972. The petitioner had ultimately moved this Court by 2 preferring C.W.J.C. No. 7479 of 1990 Najmuddin and another Vs. State of Bihar and others). It was allowed in part by order dated 12.5.1999 (Annexure-2), whereby portion of the order of the learned Collector was set aside and the matter was remitted back to him for a fresh consideration in accordance with law and the directions made therein. Paragraph 6 of the order is relevant in the present context and is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: “6. I, therefore, feel inclined in the interest of justice to direct the appellate authority to consider this aspect regarding claim of petitioner no.2, that he was major on 9.9.1970 and other aspect of classification of the lands on the basis of the relevant materials already available on record. He shall also extend opportunity to the petitioners to participate at the hearing.” The learned Collector has, on remand, disposed of the matter by the impugned order. 2. It appears to me on a perusal of the materials on record that the petitioner did not move the Member, Board of Revenue, in revisional jurisdiction, and has chosen to be subjected to the narrow scope of writ jurisdiction. It appears to me on a perusal of the impugned order that the learned Collector on a re-consideration of the 3 matter come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a major on 9.9.1970. He has also considered the question of classification of land and, after discussion of the matter, has passed appropriate order regarding classification of lands. These being issues of facts, it is difficult for this Court to interfere with the same. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/