IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9916 of 2007 Akhilesh Singh, son of Late Raj Mangal Singh, resident of village- Seveya, Post and Police Station- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector, Gopalganj. 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hathua, District- Gopalganj. 4. The Circle Officer, Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj. 5. Bibhuti Singh, son of Late Saryug Singh. 6. Divesh Singh, son of Late Dinanath Singh. 7. Anita Singh, wife of Late Praveen Singh. 8. Rajnish Singh, son of Late Dinanath Singh. 9. Gyanendra Singh, son of Late Bishwanath Singh. 10. Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Late Bishwanath Singh. 11. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of Late Bishwanath Singh. 12. Manish Kumar Singh, son of Late Rishikesh Singh @ Dharmesh Singh. Respondent nos.5 to 12 are resident of village- Sareya, Police Station- Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj. ..... Respondents. ----------- 02- 12.2.2009 Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Verma for the petitioner, and Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, assistant counsel to Dr. R.K. Singh, Government Pleader No.13 for respondent nos.1 to 4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.5.2007 (Ännexure-9), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Gopalganj, 2 in Mutation Revision Case No.5 of 2005 (Bibhuti Narain Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and others), in purported exercise of powers under section- 16 of the Bihar Tenants’ Holdings (Maintenance of records) Act 1973, whereby he has allowed the revision application preferred by respondent nos.5 to 11, has set aside the orders of the two authorities below him and has remitted the matter back to the learned Anchal Adhikari for a fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations made therein. 2. The learned revisional authority has found defects in the proceedings of the two authorities below him and has, therefore, remitted the matter back to them for a fresh decision. Law is well settled that superior courts normally do not interfere with the order of remand. It goes without saying that the parties will be afforded reasonable opportunity to present their cases before the learned Anchal Adhikari. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3