IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10820 of 2009 1. ABDUR RAHMAN 2. Jainudddin @ Sheikh Jainuddin, Both Sons of Late Behbood Hussain, Resident of Village- Dahibhat, P.S.- Terhagacch, District- Kishanganj. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anchal Padadhikari, Terhagachh, P.S. and Anchal- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj. 3. Raseda Begum, wife of Dabir-Uddin @ Dabir, Resident of Village- Dahibhat, P.S.- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj. . . . . . . Respondents. WITH CWJC No.10851 of 2009 1. ABDUR RAHMAN 2. Jainudddin @ Sheikh Jainuddin, Both Sons of Late Behbood Hussain, Resident of Village- Dahibhat, P.S.- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj. . . . . . . Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Anchal Padadhikari, Terhagachh, P.S. and Anchal- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj 3. Sabukta Praveen Wife of Akhtar Hussain, Resident of Village- Dahibhat, P.S.- Terhagachh, District- Kishanganj. . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 27.08.2009 Learned counsel for petitioners in both the applications is directed to make necessary correction in paragraph 1 of the writ application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Both the cases bearing C.W.J.C. No. 10820 of 2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 10851 of 2009 are taken up for hearing together, as the issues are common. C.W.J.C. No. 10820 of 2009 relates to proceeding of Abhilesh No. 16/08-09 in respect of 0.04 decimals of plot no. 1598 bearing Khata no. 125 of Thana No. 68 whereas in the instant case one Raseda Begum is - 2 - the respondent. A Basgit Parcha has been issued in her name in the aforesaid proceedings. So far C.W.J.C. No. 10851 of 2009 is concerned respondent no.3 is one Sabukta Praveen, wife of Akhtar Hussain. The land in this case is also 0.04 decimals of plot no. 1598 bearing Khata no. 125, Thana no. 68. In the instant case Basgit Parcha has been issued to the aforesaid respondent no.3 vide Abhilekh no. 15/08-09. Counsel for the petitioners states that without following the mandatory provisions laid down in the Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act respondent no.2, the Circle Officer Terhagachh had passed order and issued Parcha in favour of respondent no.3. Learned counsel further submits that no notice was issued to the petitioners nor the Circle Officer enquired whether respondent no.3 come within the meaning of a Privilege Person under the Act. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioners should have moved before the Collector, Kishanganj Under Section 21 of the said Act. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that petitioners should first approach before the Collector, Kishanganj against the impugned proceeding and impugned order granting Parcha in favour of respondent no.3 of both the cases in Abhilekh Case No. 16/08-09 as well as Abhilekh case no. 15/08-09. In the case, such application is filed before the Collector by the petitioners, he would dispose of the same in accordance with law. These writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (S. P. Singh, J.)