IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1828 of 2010 1. Sita Ram Singh S/O Late Basudeo Mahto R/O Vill.- Nizampura, P.S.- Asthanwan, Distt.- Nalanda 2. Shiv Nandan Singh @ Shiv Nandan Prasad S/O Late Basudeo Mahto R/O Vill.- Nizampura, P.S.- Asthanwan, Distt.- Nalanda 3. Nathun Prasad S/O Late Basudeo Mahto R/O Vill.- Nizampura, P.S.- Asthanwan, Distt.- Nalanda 4. Kedar Prasad S/O Late Basudeo Mahto R/O Vill.- Nizampura, P.S.- Asthanwan, Distt.- Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Collector, Nalanda. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Biharshariff, Distt.- Nalanda. 5. Faizuddin S/O Late Makhdum Bux R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda. 6. Afaque Ahmad S/O Late Makhdum Bux R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 7. Sakina Khatoon W/O Faizuddin R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 8. Md. Jamil Asghar S/O Late Jamil Akhtar R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 9. Jamil Athar S/O Late Jamil Akhtar R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 10. Jamil Akbar S/O Late Jamil Akhtar R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 11. Moh. Saghir S/O Late Jamil Akhtar R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 12. Moh. Sagir S/O Late Jamil Akhtar R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 13. Sultan Khatoon D/O Late Jamil Akhatar R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 14. Firoza Khatoon D/O Late Jamil Akhatar R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda 15. Yasmin D/O Late Jamil Akhatar R/O Vill.- Mafi, P.S.- Asthawan, Distt.- Nalanda ----------- 6. 06.07.2011 This letters patent appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition was filed 2 against the order of the revenue Court. Clause 10 of the Letters Patent reads as follows:- “10. Appeal to the High Court from Judges of the Court:- And we do further ordain that an appeal shall lie to the said High Court of Judicature at Patna from the Judgment (not being a Judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order) made in the exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, and not being an order made in the exercise of Revisional Jurisdiction, and not being a sentence or order passed or made in the exercise of the power of superintendence under the provisions of Section 107 of the Government of India Act, or in the exercise of Criminal Jurisdiction of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court, pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, and that notwithstanding anything hereinbefore provided an appeal shall lie to the said High Court from a judgment of one Judge of the said High Court or one Judge of any Division Court. Pursuant to Section 108 of the Government of India Act, made on or after the first day of February, One thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine, in the exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made in the exercise of Appellate Jurisdiction by a Court subject to the superintendence of the said High Court, where the Judge who passed the Judgment declares that the case is a fit one for appeal; but that the right of appeal from other judgments of Judges of the said High Court or of such Division Court shall be to 3 Us, Our Heirs or Successors in Our or Their privy Council, as hereinafter provided.” Perusal of the above clause 10 of the Letters Patent clearly reveals that no appeal shall lie against the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge, which is an order passed in exercise of the powers of superintendence of the High Court (under Section 107) of Government of India Act. This power of superintendence has been separately conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. Anand Kr. ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J.) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)