IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15519 of 2011 Md. Saiyad S/O Late Shirman Ali R/O Village- Bhuna, P.O.- Bhuna, P.S.- Jokihat, District- Araria …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Collector, Araria, District - Araria 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria, Distt.- Araria 3. The Circle Officer, Jokihat, Distt.- Araria 4. Satyanarayan Sah S/O Late Mant Lal Sah R/O Village- Bhuna, P.O. - Bhuna, P.S.- Jokihat, (Mahalgaon), District- Araria 5. Birendra Prasad Sah S/O Mant Lal Sah R/O Village- Bhuna, P.O. - Bhuna, P.S.- Jokihat, (Mahalgaon), District- Araria 6. Surendra Prasad Sah S/O Late Mant Lal Sah R/O Village- Bhuna, P.O. - Bhuna, P.S.- Jokihat, (Mahalgaon), District- Araria … Respondents For the Petitioner : M/s Satish Chandra Mishra & M.Z.Quamar, Ajay Kr. Advocates For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, AC to SC 17 2 20.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner challenges the order dated 10.5.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Sub Divisional Officer, Araria, in Case No. 2 of 2011-12, which was an appeal filed against the order passed by the Circle Officer, Jokihat, District Araria under section 48 D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, whereby he has found the petitioner entitled for raiyati rights 2 upon payment of rent as has been prescribed by the State Government. The appellate authority has set aside the order after noticing that the verification report vide letter no. 180 dated 17.2.20111 of the Anchal Nirikshak, wherein the report of the Hulka Karamchari stands appended, has been submitted without proper spot verification. It has been questioned as to how the Anchal Nirkishak could have proposed and recommended that after the death of sikkamidar, the right of occupancy could be conferred upon only one of the sikkami raiyat’s son. Even if it is assumed that the deceased was having only one son, i.e., the concerned respondent (petitioner herein) even one it had not been disclosed that the sikkami rights were heritable one in the concerned locality. In above view of the mater it has been held that, he cannot be found entitled for grant status of occupancy raiyat. Though a stand has been taken by the petitioner in paragraph 5 that he has inherited the sikkammi rights, there is no material on record to 3 demonstrate that such rights are heritable one according to the custom prevalent in the area. Thus, merely a bald statement made against the finding of the appellate authority would not be sufficient to hold the same as illegal. As a result, I find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Spd/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)