IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.757 of 2009 1.Chandra Mohan Singh 2. Krishna Mohan Singh both sons of late Madan Mohan Singh 3. Panna Singh @ Braj Mohan Singh 4. Jawahar Singh.... Both sons of late Sitaram Singh. All residents of village - Wansi, Purandaha,P.S. Dhamdaha,Distt. Purnea. 5. Sri Sri 108 Radha Krishna Jee, Wansipurandaha, through Sewayat Petitioner no.2, Krishna Mohan Singh son of late Madan Mohan Singh resident of village Wansi Purandaha,P.D. Dhamdaha, District..Purnea....................................... Appellants. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Addl. Collector, Purnea 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhamdahaj, Purnea 4. Manik Chand Mandal, son of Etwari Mandal, resident of village- Wansi Purandaha, P.S. Dhamdaha,Distt. Purnea.. Respondents. ----------- Advocate for the Appellant :- Mr. Kumar Uday Singh ------------------ 2 21-8-2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the order under appeal whereby the learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition after finding that there is no procedural irregularities in declaring the respondent no.4 under raiyat under the Provisions of Section 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. On behalf of appellants we were taken through the enquiry report/ order of the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms as well as the appellate order. They show that appellants’ fathers who were then alive were found to be actually interested in getting the claim of respondent no.4 allowed and though the Deputy Collector Land Reforms did not allow the claim but the Collector had to allow the appeal because the appellants’ fathers chose not to contest the case. Although the writ petitioners are heirs of the original applicants who represented the land-lord, the conduct of the land-lords as apparent from the orders annexed with this appeal, dis-entitled - 2 - them to any relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction. On merit also they cannot be heard when their predecessors in interest had chosen not to contest the claim of the Bataidar before the concerned authority. In the facts of the case we find no good reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( P.K. Misra, CJ ) ( Shiva Kirti Singh,J) Naresh