IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.206 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 4996/2007) Javed Alam Prakash, son of late Najmuddin, resident of village- Ghataro, P.S.- Rauta, Dist.- Purnia …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 01. The State Of Bihar 02. The Collector, Purnia 03. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar Purnia 04. The Anchal Adhikari, Baisa Anchal, Dist.-Purnia ….. Respondents/Respondents For the Appellant:- Mr. Pankaj Kr. Sinha & Mr. Rajiv Kr. Singh, Advocates For the State:- Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Upadhyay A.C. to G.P-10 ---------------------------------- 05. 25.11.2011 It appears that the appellant has approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition as the decision of the Collector, Purnia is upshot the order of this Court who remanded the matter back to the Collector, Purnia to decide the matter afresh by virtue of the order passed by this Court on 12.5.1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 7479 of 1990. As petitioner would not meet success by filing the writ petition he has filed this Appeal. The learned Single Judge has observed rightly that the alternative remedy is available to the writ petitioner before the Board of Revenue but instead of availing such remedy he has filed the present Appeal. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant has taken the stand that there is no question of alternative remedy at this stage as the Collector has already passed the order in view of remand order passed by this Court. As the Collector has passed the order afresh on merits, we are of the opinion that remedy is available to the appellant. In that view of the matter, it would suffice, if a direction is given to the appellant to file revision petition within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before Member, Board of Revenue. But however as the counsel has argued that the limitation come in the way of Appeal as such keeping in mind the said submission, we are of the opinion that as the matter was pending in the High Court and the appellant is not responsible for such delay. We give liberty to the appellant to file revision with limitation petition explaining the reasons for delay in approaching the Revisional Court. We also make it clear that the revisional authority must consider the fact with regard to pendency of the subject matter before the High Court and dispose of the limitation petition in 3 accordance with law as also the revision petition on or before 31st March, 2012. The counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that in the writ petition status quo has already been granted and therefore, it should be continued till 31st March, 2012. Considering the aforesaid submissions this Court directs that the status quo as granted by this Court will be continued till 31st March, 2012, but It is made clear that, if the appellant has failed to file revision petition in time, the order of the Collector shall become operative and status quo granted by this Court shall be vacated. With the above observation the L.P.A. stands disposed of. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)