IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5265 of 2010 AMIRI LAL SINGH, son of Late Ram Krit Singh, Resident of village Dhaphar, P.S. Chauradano, District East Champaran Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate, Motihari, District East Champaran 3. The Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Motihari, District East Champaran 4. The D.C.L.R. Raxaul, District East Champaran 5. Circle Officer Chauradano, District East Champaran 6. The Halqa Karamchari, Chauradano, District East Champaran 7. Rajdev Rai, sosn of Yadolal Rai, Resident of village Dhaphar District East Champaran 8. Dulhin Krishna Devi, wife of Yadvendra Narayan Singh, Resident of village + P.O. Reotith, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Gopalganj 9. Krivendra Kumar Sinha, son of Late Krishna Kumar Sinha, permanent Resident of village + P.O. Reotith, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Gopalganj at present Resident of 98, Anandpuri, West Boring Canal Road, Patna 10. Kausalendra Kumar Sinha, son of Late Krishna Kumar Sinha, permanent Resident of village + P.O. Reotith, P.S. Baikunthpur, District Gopalganj at present Resident of Boring Canal Road, West 104 Gandhi Nagar, Patna- 800001 ----------- 02/ 29.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent nos. 9 and 10, the raiyat of the lands in question. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he had filed share cropper dispute against Respondent nos. 9 and 10, which was allowed under order dated 8.6.2001, Annexure-1, against which Respondent nos. 9 and 10 have preferred appeal, bearing No. 2 of 2002 before the Collector, East Champaran in compliance of the observations of this Court contained in order dated 7.2.2002, Annexure-2. During the pendency of the appeal, private Respondent no.7 filed a petition under Section 48D of the B.T. Act against Respondent no.8, who has no concern with the lands 2 in question and collusively obtained occupancy status over the lands in question under order dated 14.8.2009 passed in Case No. 1 of 2008-09 from the Circle Officer, Respondent no. 5. Against order dated 14.8.2009, remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner as also private Respondent nos. 9 and 10 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of with liberty to both, the petitioner and private Respondent nos. 9 and 10 to avail the remedy of appeal against the order dated 14.8.2009 passed by Circle Officer, Respondent no.5 in Case No. 1 of 2008-09 before the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned. During the pendency of the appeal filed in compliance of this order, petitioner as also private Respondent nos. 9 and 10 are at liberty to request the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned to pass interim order so as to protect their interest as Respondent nos.7 and 8 have no connection at all with the lands in question and with this observation, the writ application is disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)