IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.884 of 2008 Adya Nath Thakur s/o late Lakshmi Nath Thakur, resident of village and P.O. – Misraulia, P.S.- Babu Barhi, District – Madhubani ……. Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Madhubani 3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Madhubani 4. The Circle Officer, Babu Barhi, P.S. Babu Barhi, Madhubani 5. Pradeep Sahu 6. Narayan Jee Sahu alias Promod Sahu, both sons of late Baldo Sahu 7. Subhash Sahu s/o late Prayag Sahu. Nos.5 to 7 are residents of village and P.O.- Misroulia, P.S. – Babu Barhi, District – Madhubani …. Respondents --- For the appellant : Mr. H.K.Thakur Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocates For the respondents: AC to SC - V ----------- 5 04-02-2009 Writ petitioner – appellant aggrieved by the order dated 23rd September, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.15129 of 2001, has preferred this appeal under Clause – 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that aggrieved by the order dated 5th October, 1988 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, in Case no.70 of 1986-87, State preferred appeal before the - 2 - Collector. When the appeal was pending before the Collector, an intervention application was filed by Baldeo Sah (respondent no.5 in writ application) claiming interest in the property in dispute. The Collector by order dated 17th August, 2001 remitted the matter back to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, with further observation that intervenor shall be heard. It is that order of the Collector which was impugned by the appellant in the writ application, which has given rise to the impugned order. Mr. K.N. Singh, appears on behalf of the appellant. Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel – V appears on behalf of the State. The Collector finding that intervenor has interest in the lis set aside the order of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, observing that intervenor was not heard The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the said order. We do not find any ground to interfere in this appeal. However, the observation of the Collector as also of this Court shall not cause prejudice to any party and - 3 - the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, shall consider the matter in accordance with law. Appeal stands dismissed with observation aforesaid. Neyaz/- C.K. Prasad, ACJ. S. K. Sharma, J.