IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11811 of 2011 1. Ashok Prasad, 2. Binod Prasad, Both sons of late Achaywar Seth, residents of mouza Baradhi, P.S. Dihri Akodhi Gola, District Rohtas, 3. Rajesh Kumar Mehta @ Chatthu Singh son of Ramlakhan Singh, resident of mouza Kolhai Baruna, P.S. Dihri Akodhi Gola, District Rohtas, … .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, 2. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram, 3. Additional Collector(Revenue), Rohtas, Sasaram, 4. Anchal Adhikari, Akodhi Gola, Sararam, 5. Jagdish Ram son of late lalchand Ram, resident of village Madhuraypur, P.S. Akodhi Gola, District Rohtas, … … Respondents For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Kr. Sinha, Sr.Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State: Mr. Apurva Kumar, AC to SC-10 … 2 30.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2011 whereby, according to the petitioner, in the purported exercise of power under section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) the Collector of the District, Rohtas, has set aside the order dated 25.07.2005 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2005- 2 06 by the Anchal Adhikari of Akodhi Gola whereby he had cancelled the homestead purcha issued in favour of respondent no. 5 after holding that once order issuing homestead purcha passed by the Anchal Adhikari, he was not entitled to reopen and cancel the order. The sole ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that under section 21 of the Act the Collector is empowered to call for the records and examine the correctness of the same and if not satisfied with the proceeding to be in accordance with law, can set aside the same and remit back the matter to the concerned Anchal Adhikari after reopening the case for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law. However, learned counsel for the State points out that there is no illegality in the order aforesaid inasmuch as the Collector of the District after finding the order dated 25.07.2005 to be illegal has set aside the same and remitted back the matter to Anchal Adhikari to act in accordance with law. The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted hereunder:- “vr,o mi;qZDr vkyksd esa vapykf/kdkjh vdks<hxksyk }kjk cklxhr ipkZ jn~n fd;s tkus laca/kh fofo/k okn la0 01@05&06 esa 3 fnukad 25-7-05 dks dks ikfjr vkns’k dks fujLr fd;k tkrk gS ,oe vfHkys[k vapy vf/kdkjh dks fu;e ds vkyksd esa dkjokb djus gsrw okil fd;k tkrk gS A izfroknh ;fn pkgs rks l{ke U;k;ky; esa vihyokn nk;j dj ldrk gS A” This Court finds force in the submission made on behalf of the State as it would appear from the order impugned that the Anchal Adhikari was not empowered to pass order cancelling the Purcha granted earlier and the matter has been sent back to him to act in accordance with the Rules and Statutes. In above view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)