IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2782 of 2011 HARNI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE BISHNUDEO HARIZAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYA TOLA FULKIA, P.S. GOPALPUR, DISTRICT BHAGALPUR …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 4. THE D.C.L.R. NAUGACHHIA, BHAGALPUR 5. THE S.D.M. NAUGACHHIYA, BHAGALPUR 6. THE C.O. ISLAMPUR, NAUGACHHIYA, BHAGALPUR 7. BAIJNATH PRASAD SAHU 8. DINESH PRASAD SAHU 9. MOST. MEERA DEVI 10. MANTU KUMAR SAHU 11. SINTU KUMAR SAHU 12. SUBHLESH KUMAR SAHU ….RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Singh For the State :Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, AC to GP 22 ----------- 02. 11.02.2011 Heard both sides. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 04.10.2010, passed in appeal preferred in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act,1973 for cancellation of Jamabandi created in the name of the writ petitioner. Learned Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur in the impugned order passed in Jamabandi Sudhar Appeal No. 06 of 2010-11 (Baijnath Prasad Sahu & Ors. Vs. Harni Devi) has noticed that the claim of he writ petitioner was based on Parcha issued in her favour in terms of the provisions of the Bihar land Ceiling Act. In spite of several indulgences granted to her, the said document was not produced. It has also been found therein that the khatiyan produced on behalf of the writ petitioner 2 (respondent in appeal) in respect of Khata No.1185, Khesra No. 3413 total area 2.75 acres did not tally with the original documents kept in the district records room. It has thus been found that no such khatiyan in the name of the writ petitioner was available in the district records room. Before this Court the petitioner has annexed the Parcha/Parvana (Annexure-1) from perusal whereof it appears that Parcha, if any, was granted to her in respect of khata no. 266, khesra Nos. 363, 421 and not in respect of the land(s) in question. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the writ petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by invocation of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The application is accordingly dismissed. Let it be recorded that no other point/issue was raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )