IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No.847 of 2008 Madhawendra Narayan Choudhary, son of late Manindra Narayan Choudhary, resident of village Parora, P.S. K. Nagar, district Purnia .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Collector, Purnia 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Purnia 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Purnia 4. The Circle Officer, K. Nagar, Block, Purnia 5. Umesh Prasad Sah, son of Badri Sah, resident of village Parora, P.S. K. Nagar, district Purnia 6. Uday Kumar Choudhary, son of late Shailendra Narain Choudhary, resident of village Parora, P.S. K. Nagar, district Purnia 7. The State of Bihar .. Respondents **** /2/ 25.03.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 02.03.2005, passed by the Circle Officer, K. Nagar Circle, Purnia, in Case No. 6 of 2002-2003. Petitioner’s case is that the impugned order has been passed by the Circle Officer on wrong assumption of facts and laws. For the same land the father of respondent no. 5 had earlier filed an application for declaration of his kaimi (occupancy) right under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy At, 1885, which was rejected considering the merit of the case. The petitioner has stated that after death of the father, respondent 2 no. 5 filed an application claiming to be the bataidar in cultivating possession of land continuously for more than 12 years and claimed for declaration of his kaimi right which was initially rejected by the Circle Officer. Against that respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal which was remanded by the appellate authority before the Circle Officer for reconsideration. On remand the Circle Officer, on wrong assumption of fact and law, has passed the impugned order. 3. Without going into the merit of the case, considering the fact that the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer under Bihar Tenancy (Amendment) Rules, 1992, and the petitioner has filed this writ application without exhausting the alternative remedy. This application is being disposed off. The petitioner may prefer an appeal against the impugned order, which should be entertained by the appellate authority without treating it as time barred. The appeal must be preferred within thirty days of this order. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )