IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC Nos.15977, 15997 & 16047 of 2004 RAMA NAND ROY …………………... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS…………Respondents (In all the three cases) ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar For Private Respondents: M/S Ashutosh Jha, Narendra Pandey & Bijay Kant Mishra ----------- 7. 8.5.2008 At the outset an objection is taken by learned counsel for Respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioner in all the three cases had opportunity of invoking the jurisdiction of the Collector of the District under Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act but instead of availing of the said statutory remedy he has directly approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no bar upon this Court in hearing a matter where lack of jurisdiction is shown on account of certain basic defects like notice not having been served upon the petitioner who was an interested party in the case being the landowner, but from the documents filed in the present writ application it cannot be said as to whether the said contention is correct or not. In the above view of the matter, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Collector of the District under Section 21 of the Act who may then call for the records and examine the contentions of the petitioner in the light of the same. In the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the three writ application with 2 liberty to approach the Collector under Section 21 of the Act. The three writ applications are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. S.Pandey. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)