IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14335 of 2008 Raj Kumar son of Narendra Prasad resident of Village Larhpur P.O.Bathua Bazar P.S. and Anchal Phulwlaria Dist. Gopalganj Petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Collector, Gopalganj 3. Additional Collector, Gopalganj 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hathua, Dist. Gopalganj 5. Anchal Padadhikari (Circle Officer), Phulwlaria Dist. Gopalganj 6. Lal Babu Gaddi son of Late Kashim Gaddi resident of village Larhpur P.O.Bathua Bazar P.S. and Anchal Phulwlaria Dist. Gopalganj Respondents ------- For the Petitioner: Mr Suresh Prasad Bhakta, Advocate For the State: Mr K.P. Gupta SC 5 -------- 03 07.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Initially, this writ petition was filed as an ordinary writ petition related to the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act but subsequently, on account of apparent lack of any connection with the land, the petitioner converted this writ petition into a public interest litigation. The petitioner claims that the settlement of 2 decimal of land with respondent no.6 be cancelled because according to the petitioner bigger plot of 27 kathas out of which 2 decimal has been settled, is being used for certain community and religious purposes like performance of Chhat Puja near a tank situated in that Parti land . It was also suggested that respondent no.6 had wrongly been accepted to be a landless person entitled for settlement of land under the aforesaid Act. - 2 - No material has been shown to us which can disprove recommendation made by the concerned authorities in favour of respondent no.6 that he is a landless person and is having a house along with Sahan and some other structures standing on 2 decimals of land in question. Even the copy of memorandum of appeal preferred by the petitioner and rejected by the impugned order contained in annexure 4 has not been annexed to show what points were taken before the appellate authority. In any case, we are satisfied that there is no element of public interest litigation involves in this case. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. It goes without saying that if the concerned villagers want to claim that 2 decimal of land is not in possession of respondent no.6 and it was under use of villagers for other purposes then they may take recourse to a properly constituted civil suit in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) shahid