IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7920 of 2006 RAM KRIPAL SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 17.9.2008 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed for the following reliefs: “(a) Order dated 10.9.2004 passed by respondent no.2 in L.C.Appeal No. 7/ 96-97 be declared as illegal to the extent the Collector though found the order as defective/ erroneous but without setting aside the said order passed by D.C.L.R. in L.C.Case No. 1/93-94 remanded the matter with a direction to the D.C.L.R. to pass order in accordance with law after hearing the parties. (b) Order dated 13.8.1996 passed by D.C.L.R., Masaurhi, Patna in Land Ceiling Case No. 1/93-94 be set aside. (c) Petitioner be declared as co- sharer and adjoining raiyat of land in question and in view of the deposit of purchased money together with a sum equal to 10% thereof by the petitioner, the petitioner be put in possession of the land in question forthwith. (d) Respondents be directed to 2 grant any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled.” From the aforementioned prayer portion it would be clear that if the petitioner had any grievance against the order of the Collector passed in appeal in a preemption case he had the only remedy of filing a revision application before the Board of Revenue under section 32 of the Bihar Land Ceiling (Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. When pointed out, Mr. Verma came out with a plea that as a matter of fact the petitioner does not have any grievance against the order of remand passed by Collector but as the D.C.L.R. has not yet received the record from the court of the Collector, further proceedings have not been initiated in terms of the impugned order remanding the matter to the D.C.L.R. It would appear to this Court that such grievance of the petitioner is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as no such prayer as noticed above has been made in this application. The prayer of the petitioner infact is to quash the remand order of the 3 Collector passed in appeal under Section 30 of the Act which does not suffer from any error in as much in a given situation, it is always open to the appellate authority to remand the case to the original authority, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is hereby dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/