IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1601 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1207 of 2003 With Interlocutory Application No. 7441 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1601 of 2011. ====================================================== Gopal Yadav, S/o Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, R/o Village - Dumar, P.S.- Falka, District – Katihar .... .... Petitioner ………..… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Katihar 3. The Additional Collector, Katihar 4. The Circle Officer, Falka, Katihar 5. Maheshwar Narain Sinha, S/o Late Sukhdeo Narain Sinha, R/o Village - Dumar, P.S.-Falka, Katihar 6. Smt. Asha Devi, W/o Gopal Yadav, R/o Village - Dumar, P.S.- Falka, District – Katihar .... .... Respondents / Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. K.P. Gupta, SC 16 and Mr. Anwar Karim, AC to SC 16. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 23-11-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 13th July 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 1207 of 2003. The matter at dispute is the grant of homestead parcha in respect of R.S. Plot No. 664(p) under R.S. Khata No. 372 of Mouza – Dumar, P.S. – Falka, District – Katihar in favour Patna High Court LPA No.1601 of 2011 (3) dt.23-11-2011 2 / 2 2 of the appellant. It appears that by order dated 17th December 1999 the application for grant of homestead parcha made by the appellant was rejected by the Circle Officer, Katihar. On the very next day, on another application made by the appellant, the Circle Officer made order in favour of the appellant. The said order was set aside by the Collector as having been made without the authority of law. After a round of litigations before this Court and before the authorities below, the petitioner filed CWJC No. 1207 of 2003. He challenged the order of the District Collector. The challenge has been rejected by the learned single Judge. The Appeal is filed 759 days beyond the period of limitation. In our view, neither the delay has been satisfactorily explained nor there is merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal and the Interlocutory Application are rejected. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)