IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1023 of 2007 Jagdish Das, Son of Late Shiv Ram Das, resident of village- Murbala, P.S. Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner Purnea Division, Purnea. 3. The Collector, Purnea. 4. The Additional Collector, Purnea. 5. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Dhamdaha, Purnea. 6. Circle Officer, Barhara Kothi, District- Purnea. 7. Dinesh Yadav, son of late Jaimanti Devi and Late Rameshwar Yadav, resident of Village- Murbala, P.S. Barhara Kothi, District- Purnia, at present resident of Village- Tinkonwa, P.S. Murliganj, District- Madhepura. ..... Respondents. ----------- 02- 6.1.2009 Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha for the petitioner, and learned junior counsel to Additional Advocate General No.5. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.2004(Annexure-2), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Purnea, in Misc. Case No.8 of 1998-99/80 of 1999 (Jagdish Das and others Vs. Mostt. Jaymanti Devi), in purported exercise of powers under section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act 1947, whereby he has rejected the petitioner’s application. 2 2. The proceedings are with respect to Khesra No.1255/1425, appertaining to Khata No.472, covering an area of 11 decimals, situate in village-Kamalpur, P.S. Dhamdaha, District- Purnea. Basgit Parcha was issued in favour of late Jaimanti Devi, mother of respondent no.7 (Dinesh Yadav) in 1969-70. The petitioner claims title to the same on the basis of a title deed of 1993, followed by his objection before the learned first authority. It appears that the petitioner’s objection was rejected. The petitioner’s revision application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that Basgit Parcha was issued in favour of Jaimanti Devi in 1969-70 and the petitioner claims title on the basis of a registered document of 1993. He also submits that the objection was filed too late in a situation where the petitioner is of the same village. In view of the reasons assigned in the impugned order, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. 3. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3