IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.419 of 2011 PAGLU HARIJAN S/O SIPAHI HARIJAN R/O VILL-KOLA NARAYANPUR P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DIST. BHAGALPUR --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL COMMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR 3. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, SADAR, BHAGALPUR. 4. SAKUNTI DEVI W/O LATE GANPAT ALIAS GOPAL HARIJAN D/O BHAGALI HARIJAN R/O VILL-SABOUR, P.S. SABOUR, DIST. BHAGALPUR, AT PRESENT MOHALLA SURKHIKAL TILKA MANJHI, PO. BHAGALPUR G.P.O.TOWN AND DIST. BHAGALPUR. 5. SUKHDEO DAS SON OF LATE BHAGALI HARIJAN R/O VILL. P.O. P.S. SABOUR, DIST. BHAGALPUR. --- RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Dr. Kumar Binod Bariav, A.C to G.P. 6 ----------- 03 21.01.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the Bataidar. He apprehended eviction and, therefore, approached the Authority under the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for declaring Bataidar. The said claim was rejected by the authority under the Act by order dated 03.12.1987 (Annexure-2). Thereafter he preferred appeal which also stood rejected by an order dated 27.12.2002 (Annexure-3). Aggrieved over the said order petitioner appears to have approached the respondent Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur challenging the order passed by the Authorities under the Act. The respondent Commissioner, by order dated 02.11.2005, rejected the said application concluding therein that under the scheme of the Act the Commissioner has not been vested with any jurisdiction. The matter thereafter 2 remained pending and again it appears that an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for review of the order which also stood rejected by order dated 24.12.2008. Aforesaid orders dated 02.11.2005 and 24.12.2008 are now being challenged in the year 2011 by invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy this Court from the provision of the Act that the Commissioner committed any illegality in refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the Authority under the Act on the ground that Commissioner has not been vested with any jurisdiction in the matter. The application lacks merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)