IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- LPA No.379 of 2008 --- ARUN KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. S.K. Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma For the respondent nos.1 to 4 : Mr. O.P.Upadhya, S.C.II (Ceiling) P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice And Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --- Dated, the 25th August, 2008 We heard the senior counsel for the appellant. 2. The senior counsel would urge that the single judge did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and mixed up the facts of the companion matter. 3. At the outset, we may observe that we find it strange that the appellant is aggrieved by the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue on 20th March, 2004 and the writ petition came to be filed by him. We fail to fathom any reason in the appellant approaching this court against the order dated 20th March, 2004, which by no stretch of imagination can be held adverse to the appellant. 4. The senior counsel did not dispute that pursuant to 2 the order of remand by this court in writ petition (CWJC. No.8971 of 1994) dated 13th July, 1995, the matter was re-enquired by the additional Collector. On re-enquiry, the Additional Collector, yet, again held that the transfer affected in favour of appellant’s father was null and void. 5. An appeal was preferred from the order of Additional Collector by the present appellant to the Collector, who maintained the order of the Additional Collector and , thus, the transfer in favour of appellant’s father was held to be bad in law. From the concurrent orders of the Additional Collector and the Collector, the present appellant preferred revision before the Board of Revenue. 6. In the opinion of the Board of Revenue, the enquiry by the Additional Collector was not in conformity and in accord with the directive of this court contained in the order dated 13th July, 1995. The Member Board of Revenue, noticed the infirmities in the inquiry in its order dated 20th March, 2004 and ordered re- inquiry as per earlier order of this court dated 13th July, 1995. In our view, for the reasons indicated in the order dated 20th March, 2004, the remand became imminent. 7. Be that as it may, non-interference by the single judge in the order of remand dated 20th March, 2004, does not call for any interference by us. 3 8. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Neyaz/-