IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8802 of 2007 Jawahir Yadav, son of Late Chandraman Yadav, resident of village + P.O.- Rajapur, at dera of Navrang Rai, P.S. Simri, District- Baxur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Baxur. 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumrao, District- Baxur. 4. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dumrao, District- Baxur. 5. Anchaladhikari –cum- Circle Officer, Simari Circle, Anchal- Simri, District- Baxur. 6. Budhiya Devi, wife of Markat Yadav, resident of village and P.O.- Rajapur, at dera of Navrang Rai, P.S. Simri, District- Baxur. 7. Collector, Baxur, District- Baxur. .. Respondents. ----------- 02- 11.2.2009 Heard Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra for the petitioner, and Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, learned assistant counsel to Standing Counsel No.4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.5.2007 (Annexure-5), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Buxar, under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), in Case No.124 of 2004/351 of 2006 (Budhiya Devi Vs. Jawahar Yadav), whereby he has allowed the revision application preferred by respondent no.6, and has set aside the order of the learned first authority. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The present petitioner had filed an 2 application under the Act claiming Basgit Parcha with respect to the land in question, namely, Khesra No.1950, covering an area of 8 decimals, appertaining to Khata no.67, situate at Mauza- Rajpur, Thana No.66. The application on contest was allowed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, vide order dated 7.7.2004 (Annexure-2), passed in Basgit Parcha Case No.42 of 2003-04. Aggrieved by this order, respondent no.6 filed revision application under the Act which has been allowed by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner herein (Basgit Parcha-holder) is owner of a house at a different place. The revisional authority also felt impressed by the case of respondent no.6 herein that she is herself a landless and a poor lady. It may incidentally be stated that respondent no.6 had also filed T.S. No.82 of 2005 (Budhiya Devi Vs. Jawahir Yadav and others), which was dismissed for default by order dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Buxar. It appears that the revision application of respondent no.6 has been allowed for a valid reason. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3