IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5309 of 2011 AKHILANAND TIWARY, SON OF LATE DEVI DIN RAM TIWARY, VILLAGE GOUSHIYA, P.S. MANJHAGARH, DISTRCIT GOPALGANJ …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER BARAULI DISTRICT GOPALGANJ 4. EKAMNUTT, SON OF HARIHARNUTT 5. ARJUNNUTT SON OF EKAMNUTT 6. CHATTHUNUTT SON OF HERANUTT 7. BIPATNUTT SON OF KESWARNUTT 8. NADANUTT SON OF BIPATNUTT 9. SAMBHUBAITHA SON OF HARIHARBAITHA, ALL R/O- SARSARA, P.S. BARAULI, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ For the petitioner :Mr. Mukesh Kumar For the State :Mr.Ranjan Kr. Dubey, AC to G.P.23 ----------- 02. 24.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner claims to be the landholder of a piece of land in respect whereof applications were filed by private respondent nos.4 to 9 for grant of Purcha(s) under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act,1947(Bihar Act IV of 1948), hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟. An enquiry seems to have been made whereafter Purcha(s) were issued in their names as would appear from the order dated 04.02.2011, passed by Respondent-Anchal Adhikari, Barauli, Gopalganj. It is the stand of the petitioner that the land was purchased by father of the petitioner sometime in the year 1989/90. From the order sheet of the Respondent-Circle Officer, it appears that the land stood recorded in the names of Nandan 2 Pd. Pandey and Devi Din Ram Tiwari and not in the name of the father of the writ petitioner. Order recording Jamabadi in respect of the land in question in the name of father of the writ petitioner is not on record. It is further the submission of the petitioner that there has been non-compliance of the rule 5(2) of the Rules framed under the Act. Section 21 of the Act reads as under: “21. Power of the Collector of the District to call for and examine records- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or authority; the Collector of the district may on his own motion or on the application of any party, or on reference being made by any subordinate authority, call for and examine record of any case decided or proceeding taken by the Collector under the Act for satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceeding or to the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the Collector under the Act in the case or proceeding, and may after, allowing the parties concerned opportunity of being heard, direct that the case or the proceeding be re-opened and disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” It thus appears that the Act itself has provided a statutory remedy for filing an application before the Collector of the district in terms of the said provision for redressal of grievance. Having considered the scanty pleadings made in the application, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should approach the Respondent-Collector assailing the order impugned in terms of section 21 of the Act. If any such application is filed within four weeks from today, the Collector 3 of the district shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. For four weeks from today, status quo in respect of the land claimed by the petitioner shall be maintained by all the parties. The application stands disposed of. ( Kishore K. Mandal ) HR