IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.419 of 2010 1. MD. NAIYAR ALAM S/O Nabi Hassan, 2. Md. Mahim @ Mohim, S/O Nabi Hassan, 3. Md. Azim @ Md. Azimuddin, S/O Nabi Hassan All are residents of village-Domeriya, P.S.- Mahalgaon, District- Araria (Bihar). . . . . . (Applicants U/S 48 E). . . . . . (Writ petitioners). . . . . Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector of the District, Araria, 3. The Additional Collector, Araria. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Araria. 5. The Anchala Adhikari, Jokihat, Araria. . . . . . . (Respondents 1st Party in Writ) . . . . . . Respondents 1st Set. 6. Rizwan Alam S/O Late Shaique Ahmad 7. Imran Ahmad S/O Late Shaique Ahmad 8. Jubair Ahmad S/O Late Sajjad Ahmad 9. Bibi Rashina Khatoon W/O Azaz Ahamad All are residents of village-Domeriya, P.S.- Mahalgaon, District- Araria. . . . . . . . . . . . . (Interveners before the D.C.L.R.- Appellants in appellate Court). . . . . . . . . . (Respondents 2nd Party in writ petition) . . . . . . . . . Respondents 2nd Set. 10. Most. Hatoon W/O Late Rahman, 11. Bibi Fakrun D/O Late Rahman. Both are residents of village-Jugindar, P.S.- Mahalgaon, District- Araria. . . . (Respondents 3rd party in writ). . . . Respondents 3rd Set. ----------- 2/ 17.03.2011 The appellants have filed the instant appeal against the order dated 04.02.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1985 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge affirmed the order of the appellate court, rejecting the plea of the appellant that they would be Bataidar of the land involved in case no. 24 of 2000-01 / 20 of 2005-06 / 63 of 2007-08. It appears to us that the claim of Badaidar of the appellants was allowed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria, as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application. In appeal the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Araria, 2 was set aside by order dated 07.11.2009, by the learned Additional Collector, Araria. The Additional Collector, Araria, held that the appellants, being minor on the date of initiation of proceeding, could not have been Bataidars of the lands in question. The order of the appellate court was affirmed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1985 of 2010, solely on the ground that the appellants being minors, could not have been Bataidars of the lands in question. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.02.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1985 of 2010, as the learned Single Judge observed that the appellants were incapable of being the Bataidars, as they were minor on the relevant date. However, it would be open to the appellants to prefer a fresh Bataidari case, if so advised on attaining majority. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is disposed of. Uday/ (S. K. Katriar, J.) (S. P. Singh, J.)