IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.243 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 6496/2007) Mohiuddin Baitha, Son of Fulo Baitha, Resident of Village- Sukhi, P.O. Gogi Pothiya, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria. …………….Petitioner- Appellant. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Araria. 3. The Land Reforms Deputy collector, Forbesganj, Araria. 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Forbesganj, Araria. 5. Nizam Baitha. 6. Shamim Baitha. 7. Imam Baitha. 8. Aslam Baitha. 9. Rustam Baithya, Respondent 5 to 9 are sons of late Sihad Baitha. 10. Riyaz Baitha. 11. Jamil Ahmad Baitha. 12. Katir Ahmad Baitha. Respondent Nos. 10 to 12 are sons of Late Fateh Mohammad. All are resident of Village- Sukhi, P.O. Gogi, Pothiya, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria. ……………….Respondents. ………………. For the Appellant: Mr. Girish Prasad Gupta, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.13 For the Pvt. Respondents: Mr.Abdul Mannan Khan & Mr. Binay Kumar Bineet, Advocates. ---------------------------------- 4 30.11.2011 This appeal has been filed against the order dated 3.2.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.6496 of 2007, whereby claim of the petitioner- appellant herein has been refused upholding the order passed by the Collector. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that as earlier settlement was made in favour of his father on the ground of privileged person his settlement cannot be cancelled as being son he is also a privileged person and is entitled for settlement of lands. The learned Single Judge after having heard the parties has dismissed the writ application on the ground that 2 cancellation of settlement in favour of the appellant is valid as also on the ground of delay observing that the impugned order was passed on 19.8.1997/ 20.8.1997 whereas the writ petition was filed on 17.5.2007 i.e. after lapse of ten years. In the opinion of this Court the appellant cannot be treated to be a privileged person on the ground that earlier settlement was made in favour of his father as he was a privileged person. In the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 the privileged person defines as follows:- “Privileged persons means a person- (i)who is not a proprietor, tenure- holder, under tenure holder or Mahajan; and (ii)who, besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre.” Taking into account the definition of privileged person we cannot treat the appellant as privileged person, who is son of a person in whose favour settlement was made earlier and hence we do no find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly this L.P.A stands dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)