IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.897 of 2008 1. DHENA SOREN @ DENA SOREN S/O LATE MANSU SOREN, R/O VILLAGE- BILARPARI, P.S.-KATIHAR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KATIHAR 5. BIBI KANIJAN W/O CHAUDHARY ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA CHAUDHARY, P.S.-KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR with LPA No.1011 of 2008 1. PATWARI TUDDU S/O LATE RNAJEET TUDDU, R/O BILARPARI, P.S.- KATIHAR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KATIHAR 5. BIBI KANIJAN W/O CHAUDHARY ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA CHAUDHARY, P.S.-KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR with LPA No.1010 of 2008 1. CHOTA BESRA S/O SONA BESRA, R/O BILARPARI, P.S.- KATIHAR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT-KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KATIHAR 5. BIBI KANIJAN W/O CHAUDHARY ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA CHAUDHARY, P.S.-KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR with LPA No.1007 of 2008 1. BARKA BESRA @ BARKU BESRA S/O SHYAM BESARA, R/O BILARPARI, P.S.-KATIHAR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KATIHAR 5. BIBI KANIJAN W/O CHAUDHARY ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA CHAUDHARY, P.S.-KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR with LPA No.1006 of 2008 1. POLICE MURMU S/O LATE RAMU MURMU 2. SHAMBHU MURMU S/O LATE TIDIYUG MURMU BOTH R/O BILARPARI, P.S.-KATIHAR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR - 2 - 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KATIHAR 5. BIBI KANIJAN W/O CHAUDHARY ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA CHAUDHARY, P.S.-KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR with LPA No.1005 of 2008 1. MANGAL BESRA S/O SHYAM BESRA R/O BILARPARI, P.S.-KATIHAR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KATIHAR 5. BIBI KANIJAN W/O CHAUDHARY ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA CHAUDHARY, P.S.-KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR With LPA No.1004 of 2008 1. BAIJU TUDDU S/O LATE SALAI TUDDU R/O BILARPARI, P.S.-KATIHAR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KATIHAR 5. BIBI KANIJAN W/O CHAUDHARY ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA CHAUDHARY, P.S.-KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR with LPA No.973 of 2008 1. LONGRA MURMU S/O LATE CHATHU MURMU R/O BILARPARI, P.S.- KATIHAR MUFFASIL, DISTRICT- KATIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 3. LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, KATIHAR 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, KATIHAR 5. BIBI KANIJAN W/O CHAUDHARY ABDUL HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA CHAUDHARY, P.S.-KATIHAR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR ******** For the Appellants :- Mr. Birendra Singh, Advocate Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent :- Mr. Satyabir Bharti, JC to AAG-3 *************** 5 20/01/2009 Reg : I. A. Nos. 6711, 7636, 7637, 7592, 7593, 7590, 7591 and 7354 of 2008 These applications have been filed for condoning the - 3 - delay in filing these appeals. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing these appeals is condoned. We have heard the matter on merit. Writ petitioners-appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 15.07.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13286 of 2005 and analogous cases, have preferred these appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioners- appellants, assailed the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector refusing to entertain the application under section 48 E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector refused to entertain the application on the ground that earlier such application filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 22.5.1998 and the said order was affirmed by the Collector by order dated 28th of February 2001. It observed that the petitioners did not challenge those orders. According to the petitioners, in earlier petition altogether 17 persons were the parties and out of them 7 filed C.W.J.C. No. 4277 of 2001 in which the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector and Collector were set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration. Accordingly, writ petitioners contended before the learned Single Judge that their cases be also remitted for fresh consideration. This - 4 - submission did not find favour with the learned Single Judge. Negativing the aforesaid contention, the learned Single Judge referred to the earlier order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4277 of 2001 and found that the different persons had filed different applications with respect to different plots and they having not taken any steps to challenge those orders, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector did not err in not entertaining the application. We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. These appeals stand dismissed. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin