IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19294 of 2010 MANSOOR MIAN S/O JHAKHAR MIAN, R/O VILL. PURAINA GOSAIN (PASI TOLA), P.S. CHANPATIA, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH 4. THE LAND REFORM DY. COLLECTOR, BETTIAH 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, CHANPATIA, BETTIAH 6. RAM SAWARI DEVI, DAUGHTER OF BAHADUR DAS, W/O GANGA DAS, R/O PURAINA GOSAIN (PASI TOLA), P.S. CHANPATIA, DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. ----RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shashi Shekhar, A.C. to S.C.20 ----------- 02 01.12.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner, who claims to be the privileged tenant, assails the revisional order dated 02.08.2010 whereby the revision application preferred by respondent no 6 has been considered and allowed by respondent Collector, West Champaran Bettiah. Petitioner herein laid claim over 2.5 decimals of land appertaining to thana no. 54, khata no. 156, plot no. 920 situate in mouza Puraina Gosain. It appears that he approached the respondent Anchal Adhikari for issuance of ‘purcha’ on the ground that he was privileged tenant. This gave rise to case no. 1/03-04. From the report submitted to the Circle Officer providing foundation of the order, it appears that the land in question stood recorded in the name of Smt. Ram Sawari Devi (respondent no.6). Said claim was allowed. 2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order respondent no.6 preferred R.M.54/2009-10 (Ram Sawari Devi vs. Mansoor Miya). Respondent Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah afforded opportunity of hearing to both the parties and thereafter came to the conclusion that before issuance of ‘purcha’ in favour of the writ petitioner no spot verification was made by the Circle Officer which was breach of Rule 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules. He has also found, as a fact, that notice was not validly served upon the respondent no.6 although records were made to show that the notices were issued and served. There is also a finding that L.T.I. obtained on the service report was not the L.T.I. of the respondent no.6. Respondent Collector has also found that respondent no.6 is herself a privileged tenant as she possesses only six and odd decimals of land. Referring to the provisions contained in Section 2 (1) (J) of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, it has been found that the land in question was illegally allotted in favour of the writ petitioner. Having regard to the aforesaid findings, learned Collector has interfered with the order impugned. In that view of the matter, no case for invocation of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction has been made out. The application is dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)