IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5659 of 2009 1. Rajendra Mandal 2. Jai Prakash Mandal, Both sons of Late Narayan Mandal, resident of village Harinkol, P.S. & Anchal- Barari, District Katihar, presently residing at village Baniya, P.S. Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Katihar, District Katihar 3. The Land Reform Dy. Collector, Katihar, District Katihar 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar, sub-Division, District Katihar 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Barari, District Katihar 6. Gujali Devi, wife of Falo Mandal, resident of village Harinkol, P.S. & Anchal- Barari, District Katihar 7. Ram Govind Mandal, son of Falo Mandal, resident of village Harinkol, P.S. & Anchal- Barari, District Katihar with CWJC No.5662 of 2009 1. Rajendra Mandal 2. Jai Prakash Mandal, Both sons of Late Narayan Mandal, resident of village Harinkol, P.S. & Anchal- Barari, District Katihar, presently residing at village Baniya, P.S. Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Katihar, District Katihar 3. The Land Reform Dy. Collector, Katihar, District Katihar 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar, sub-Division, District Katihar 5. Falo Mandal, son of Hiraman Mandal, resident of village Harinkol, P.S. & Anchal- Barari, District Katihar, ----------- 03/ 23.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners are the raiyat of the lands in question. They are aggrieved by the order of the Circle Officer, Barari, whereunder 0.07 decimals out of the aforesaid land, has been settled with their brother-in-law, Falo Mandal, Gujali Devi, wife of Falo Mandal and Ram Govind Mandal, son of Falo Mandal, vide Basgit Parcha Case Nos. 29 of 2001-02 and 5 of 2002-03. According to the petitioners, lands in question could not have been settled with their brother/ sister-in-law and nephew. Highlighting 2 the aforesaid grievance, petitioners have filed representation before the Collector of the District, which is dated 30.9.2008, Annexure-3. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from the service report submitted in connection with the notice issued in the two Basgit Parcha cases, it would appear that notice was served bala-bala. 4. Counsel for the private Respondents, however, submitted that against the impugned order of settlement of lands in question made in favour of private Respondents, petitioners have a remedy of appeal and they should avail the forum of appeal. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioner, the State and the private Respondents, I direct the Collector, Katihar to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 30.9.2008, Annexure-3 in the two applications as appeal under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of appearance of the petitioners and private Respondents before the Collector, Katihar. Petitioners and private Respondents are directed to appear before the Collector, Katihar along with a certified copy of this order on 22.3.2010. 6. Both the writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V.N. Sinha, J.)