IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.917 of 2025 ====================================================== Md. Hefaz @ Hafajudin Son of Late Rafique Resident of Village- Gaivi, Shankarpur, Ward No.- 10, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Revenue Dept. Govt. of Bihar. 2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Farbishganj, Araria. 3. The Circle Officer, Farbishganj, Araria. 4. Md. Kamil, Son of Late Md. Nasiz Resident of Village- Ganjbhog Sumarbani, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. 5. Md. Alam, Son of Late Md. Nasiz Resident of Village- Ganjbhog Sumarbani, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. 6. Abdul Rahman, Son of Late Md. Nasiz Resident of Village- Ganjbhog Sumarbani, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. 7. Md. Shamim, Son of Late Md. Ashraf Resident of Village- Ganjbhog Sumarbani, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. 8. Md. Jamil, Son of Late Md. Ashraf Resident of Village- Ganjbhog Sumarbani, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. 9. Md. Mukhtar, Son of Late Md. Saddik Resident of Village- Ganjbhog Sumarbani, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. 10. Md. Yusuf, Son of Late Mohammad Jumman Resident of Village- Ward No.- 10, Jagto, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shovendra Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajeshwar Singh, GA10 Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to GA10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 2 28-01-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned Counsel for the State. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20.11.2024 passed in BLT Case No.08 of 2024 by Patna High Court CWJC No.917 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2025 2/3 which the order dated 02.04.2023 passed in Appeal No.02 of 2012-13 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Farbishganj was set aside. 3. Learned Counsel submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is completely not in accordance with law and illegal and, therefore, set aside. He further submits that the petitioner has paid money in the light of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (Bihar Act IV of 1948) and, therefore acquired the right of occupancy raiyat in his favour which without considering the legal aspect, the BLT has set aside the said order passed by the S.D.O. Farbishganj. He submit that the said order be set aside as the order discussed by the S.D.O. has not been taken into consideration. 4. Counsel for the State submits that it is the second round of litigation. Earlier C.W.J.C. No.10148 of 2020 was filed in which it was directed to pass order afresh under section 48(D) of the the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (Bihar Act IV of 1948) and on the basis of which, the S.D.O. has passed order on 08.04.2023, which has been challenged by the present respondents before the BLT and the BLT after discussing every aspect of the law, held that the S.D.O. has passed the order without consideration of the sale deed as well as parwana issued in favour of the petitioners of Patna High Court CWJC No.917 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2025 3/3 the B.L.T. 5. The B.L.T. has also discussed that Md. Hefaz, the descendant of Md. Nuruddin and his nephew whose name was mentioned in khatiyan as sikmidar and the said Md. Nuruddin was three brothers. 6. It transpires to this Court that with the reasoning, it has been held by the B.L.T. that S.D.O has committed legality in considering Md. Hefaz (O.P. No.4) of the B.L.T. to be descendant of sikmidar Md. Nuruddin having only nephew whereas the actual aspect is that Nuruddin had three brothers and this is basically a factual matrix which has been suppressed. 7. In this view of the matter that suppression has been made by the petitioner of the B.L.T and the B.L.T. has set aside the order dated 08.04.2023 passed by S.D.O., Farbishganj in Appeal No.2 of 2012-13, has correctly been passed and there is no need of any interference in this matter. 8. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the present writ application stands dismissed. Prakashmani/- (Dr. Anshuman, J.) U