IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1248 of 2010 Durgan Paswan Son of late Ram Jatan Paswan, village Ibrahimpur, PS Aurangabad(M), District Aurangabad ....Petitioner no.16 /Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Aurangabad 3. The SDM, Aurangabad 4. The Circle Officer, Aurangabad 5. Ram Narayan Singh son of Late Maheshi Singh, resident of Village Nawagarh, PS Aurangabad (m), District Aurangabad 6. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna ....Respondents/Respondents 7. Durga Paswan son of late Jhapshi Paswan 8. Ramashish Paswan son of late Tufani Paswan 9. Kirshna Paswan son of late Doman Paswan 10.Ram Pravesh Paswan son of Late Ram Khelawan Paswan 11.Brij Lal Paswan son of Budhan Paswan 12.Tulsi Paswan son of Jhaman Paswan 13.Ram Prasad Paswan son of Tulsi Paswan 14.Dashu Ram son of Girdhar Ram 15.Khelawan Paswan son of Budh Nath Paswan 16.Ram Sundar Paswan son of Tulsi Paswan 17.Gobardhan Paswan son of Late Tapsi Paswan 18.Kashis Paswan son of Late Tuphani Paswan 19.Jagdeo Ram son of Bipat Ram 20.Sita Ram Paswan son of Late Kewal Paswan 21.Deo Lal Paswan son of Niranjan Paswan 22.Ganuri Paswan son of Late Dhari Paswan -Respondent nos. 7 to 22 are residents of Village Ibrahimpur, PS Aurangabad (m), District Aurangabad ....Petitioners/Formal Respondents ----------- 02- 7/7/2011 None appears on behalf of the appellant. Heard learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.II for respondent nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Aditya Narayan for respondent no.6. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna has been preferred by one of the petitioners of CWJC No.9547 of 2 2010, and is aggrieved by the order dated 2.7.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents. It appears that the appellant is the parcha- holder who had been granted land which was delcared surplus in Ceiling Case no.4/1991-92. Parcha in favour of the appellant was cancelled for the reason that the extra units had subsequently been allotted to the land-holder as a result of which land was not left for the parcha-holders. The petitioner challenged the same by moving this Court by preferring the writ petition which was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.1.2006. However, the Court observed that the Collector of the district of Aurangabad may consider the request of the appellant for grant of alternative piece of land. The Collector had considered the same and found that no such land is available for distribution. The same has been challenged by preferring the present writ petition which has been rejected by the learned Single Judge for the aforesaid reason, and also for the reason that two decades have lapsed after cancellation of the parchas. We agree with the order of 3 the learned Single Judge. 3. The appeal is dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Vikash Jain ) mrl