IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.462 of 2009 SAKALDEO RAI @ RAM SAKAL SINGH, SON OF RAM BAHADUR RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – CHHOTI SIMRAHA, P.S. – ALAULI, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA …… APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KHAGARIA. 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, ALAULI, DISTRICT – KHAGARIA. 4. MAHABIR SAH, S/O LATE GOR SHAY SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHHOTI SIMRAHA, P.S. – ALAULI, DISTT. – KHAGRIA. 5. ASHOK THAKUR, S/O LATE GULAM THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – CHHOTI SIMRAHA, P.S. – ALAULI, DISTT. KHAGARIA. …….. RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Tarun Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. S.P. Singh, Government Advocate-VIII ----------- 3. 30.4.2009 Heard the parties. The writ petitioner-appellant had challenged the order dated 15.10.2006 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the Collector of the District of Khagaria in Misc. Case No. 34/2001-02 whereby the learned Collector in exercise of his powers under Section 5 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) had allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 4 (Purcha Holder) and had ordered for restoring his possession. Respondent No. 5 filed an application before the Collector upon which Misc. Case 34/01-02 was registered. He alleged that the Purcha with regard to the disputed land was issued in his favour in accordance with law in case No. 9/1975- 76 on 24.9.1976. His further case was that he was already in - 2 - possession/occupation of homestead land in question. After issuance of purcha, Jamabandi No. 688 was also created in his name and he started paying rent to the State of Bihar. Further allegation was that on 29.9.2001, the writ petitioner forcibly and illegally dispossessed respondent No. 4. Therefore, it was urged that his possession be restored. The Collector heard both the parties and has held that Homestead Purcha was issued in favour of the respondent No. 4 in accordance with law and in the year 1976 itself. It has further held that respondent No. 4 has been forcibly and illegally dispossessed by the writ petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner-Appellant submits that the Purcha was not issued to respondent No. 4 in accordance with law as the notices were not issued upon the recorded tenant at that point of time. It is further contended that he has purchased the land in dispute from the descendants of the recorded tenants in the year 1995 by registered deed, thus, the learned Collector ought to have dismissed the petition filed by the respondent No. 4. We do not find any force in the submission made by the Writ Petitioner-Appellant. The homestead purcha was issued in favour of the respondent No. 4 by the competent authority exercising its power under the Act in the year 1976 itself which was never challenged by anyone for more than 15 years. Thus, the order passed under the Act became final and Section 18 of the Act even bars filing of any suit before any Civil Court to vary - 3 - or set aside such order except on the ground of fraud or want of jurisdiction. That apart, the writ petitioner has not brought any evidence in support of his claim that he is having right and title over the disputed land. Thus, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly held that in the absence of any material on record supporting the claim of the petitioner and also for the reason as has been found by the Collector, that Homestead Purcha was validly issued in favour of the respondent No. 4 under the provision of the Act, the impugned order cannot be faulted. Thus, being intra court appeal, and in view of the fact that the writ petitioner-appellant failed to point out any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, we are of the opinion that no interference of this Court is warranted in this matter. As a result, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. S. Ali (J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)