IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.779 of 2010 1. GULAB ANSARI S/O NEK MOHAMMAD MIYAN R/O VILL.- GYASPUR MATHIYA, P.O.- GYASPUR, P.S.- SISWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN ...Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, SIWAN 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SISWAN, DISTT - SIWAN 4. RAJENDRA BAITHA S/O RAMAYAN BAITHA R/O VILL.- GYASPUR MATHIYA, P.O.- GYASPUR, P.S.- SISWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN ...Respondents ----------- 5 30-08-2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.4. It is the case of the appellant that in course of hearing of a matter u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which related to a dispute in respect of land of Khata no. 543, Survey plot no. 3050, area one katha and three dhurs he came to know about an order of settlement in respect of that land in favour of private respondent no.4 showing that settlement was under the provisions of Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. Allegedly on coming to know of such an order, counting the limitation from the date of knowledge, the appellant preferred a revision application before the Collector, Siwan but the said revision case bearing no. 473/2002 2 was dismissed on 10-4-2005 vide annexure-5 to the writ petition on the ground of limitation. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the order of the Collector, Siwan contained in annexure-5 to the writ petition under a misconception of fact that the order of the Collector was passed in a proceeding u/s 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After notice the private respondent has appeared and now the fact has been clarified that the revision application was preferred before the Collector, Siwan against an order passed under Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act. It further appears that Collector, Siwan had passed the order dated 10-4-2005 after hearing both the parties and he gave his findings on merits as well as on account of limitation. In the facts of the case, it appears necessary and in the interest of justice that the matter be remitted for fresh consideration by the writ court. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed to the extent that the order under 3 appeal dismissing the writ petition is set aside for fresh decision in accordance with law. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)