IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4337 of 2011 SHYAM DEO MANDAL SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR MANDAL R/O VILL JHEEL TOLA, BAGHMARA, P.S.K.NAGER DIST. PURNEA --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR OF PURNEA 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER K.NAGER PURNEA 4. HALKA KARMACHARI , K.NAGER, PURNEA 5. SMT. JOWACHHI DEVI W/O RAJ KUMAR MANDAL R/O VILL. JAHEEL TOLA BAGHMARA, P.S. K.NAGER, PURNEA --- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. S.K.Tiwary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Bijay Shankar Choubey, A.C. to S.C.8 ----------- 03 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel no.8. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.01.2010 passed by respondent Collector, Purnea in R.R. Basgit Parcha case no. 40 of 2008 ( Shyamdeo Mandal vs. Smt. Jiwachhi Devi). While exercising his jurisdiction under Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) the revision preferred by the petitioner was considered and rejected. Petitioner raised a grievance with regard to issuance of parcha in favour of respondent no.5, who has been adjudged as the privileged tenant in the year 2000, in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Act vide Basgit Purcha case no. 25 of 99- 2000. The certified copy of the said order has been produced by the petitioner which is kept on record marked ‘X’. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order submits that the petitioner had purchased the aforesaid land 2 in the year 1987. He has only 04 decimals of land. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, simply supported the impugned order. It appears that the respondent Collector called for a report from the concerned Circle Officer which was submitted on 02.01.2010 (Annexure-3). It has been found therein that this petitioner was related to respondent no.5 and was instrumental in issuance of parcha in favour of respondent no.5. Now since the lands have become urban land, the appeal has been preferred after 08 years in order to divest respondent no.5 of her privilege arising out of issuance of parcha under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not enclosed the order by which mutation in respect of the land in question having been purchased by him in the year 1987 was made. The Circle Officer found that the Basgit purcha holder was rightly adjudged as the privileged tenant, after due notice and local inspection and was in possession of the land after getting parcha in the year 2000. I have perused the entire order sheet of the Circle Officer (Collector under the Act) marked as ‘X’. Notices were duly issued to the landholder and the report was obtained from the Circle Inspector. The Circle Officer himself made spot inspection and after having found that respondent no.5 was residing on the subject land measuring 0.03 decimals and was a privileged tenant issued parcha. Nearly 08 years thereafter the said appeal was filed by the writ petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts appearing 3 from record, respondent Collector has refused to interfere with the order. This Court does not find any illegality in the said order meriting invocation of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)