IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13982 of 2009 1. JIBA NAND JHA SON OF LATE NATHUNI JHA. 2. HARIKANT JHA SON OF LATE AJAB LAL JHA. 3. KHARA NAND JHA SON OF LATE BAIJNATH JHA. 4. RAMESH JHA SON OF LATE RAM SHANKAR JHA. 5. ARUN KR. JHA SON OF LATE HARI SHANKAR JHA. 6. BINOD KR. JHA @ BINOD JHA SON OF LATE JANARDAN JHA. 7. MEENA DEVI WIFE OF LATE BHAIRWA NAND JHA. 8. USHA JHA DAUGHTER OF LATE BHAIRWA NAND JHA. 9. DOLI KUMARI DAUGHTER OF LATE BHAIRWA NAND JHA 10. AMRESH JHA SON OF LATE BHAIRWA NAND JHA. 11.KRANTI KUMAR JHA SON OF LATE BHAIRWANAND JHA. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- POORANI BAZAR JHAJHA P.O. PS. JHAJHA, DIST – JAMUI. ... ... PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, JAMUI. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMUI. 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER JHAJHA, JAMUI. 4. ARUN SINGH SON OF MASUDAN SINGH. 5. SHAMBHU SINGH SON OF MASUDAN SINGH. 6. PRAMOD SINGH SON OF JAMUNA SINGH. 7. KESHAR SINGH SON OF LAKHESHWAR SINGH. 8. AMAR SINGH SON OF LATE JAGDISH SINGH. 9. ASHOK SINGH SON OF BINDESHWAR SINGH. 10. UPENDRA SINGH SON OF LAKHESHWAR SINGH. RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 10 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE CHARGHARA, P.S. JHAJHA, DIST- JAMUI. ... ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 27.10.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are claiming occupancy rights over the lands in question through the earlier occupancy raiyat, namely, Runa Jha, who according to the petitioners died in the year 1950, which is disputed by the private respondent nos.4 to 10 to the landlords as according to them Renu Jha died - 2 - in the year 1925 and since then the private respondents are in possession of the lands in question. The petitioners filed application for mutation claiming occupancy rights over the lands in question in the year 2004 vide Sikhmi Case No.3/2004, which was allowed under orders dated 16.4.2005 against which the private respondents filed appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer who is authorized to hear such appeal in terms of the provisions contained in the rules made with reference to Section 48(D) of the B.T. Act and notified by the Government under notification dated 28th February,1992. 3. The appellate authority having considered the fact that the landlords/private respondents 4 to 10 regained possession of the lands in question after the death of the original Sikhmidar, namely, Renu Jha rejected the claim of the petitioners and refused to accept them the occupancy raiyat of the lands in question as there was hardly any continuity of possession of the petitioners over the lands in question. The petitioners had failed to - 3 - N.H./ explain the factum of their possession during the period between 1950 the year of death of Renu Jha according to the petitioners and the date of filing of the Sikmi Case No.3/04 under Section 48 (D) vide Case No.3/2004. 4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I do not see any illegality in the impugned order, which is well within the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( V.N. Sinha,J.)