Tapen Sen, J.

1. In this writ application the writ petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for quashing the Basgit Parchas issued by the respondent No. 5 (Circle Officer, Ganwa, P.O. & P.S.--Ganwa, District - Giridih) in favour of respondent Nos. 7 to 13 in exercise of powers conferred upon him under the provisions of Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as an Act). According to the petitioners, the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are neither privileged persons nor privileged tenants within the meaning of the Act in relation to the Raiyati land belonging to the petitioners nor are they predecessors in Interest in any manner what so ever. The Basgit Parchas have been appended as Annexure-3 series in the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 from taking possession of the land in question or from disturbing the possession of the petitioners in relation to the aforementioned lands,

2. The Basgit Parchas issued in the instant case and which have been annexed as Annexure-3 series, will go to show that the same have been issued in Form G under the provisions of Rule 5(5) of the Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Rules, 1948. Sub-rule (5) authorises the Collector to prepare a record of homestead held by privileged tenants in Form G. In other words, the Act of issuing Basgit Parchas amounts to creating permanent tenancy, in relation to privileged tenants.

3. In the instant case, the petitioners have very emphatically stated that the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are not privileged tenants nor privileged persons nor does the relationship of landlord and tenant exists inter se betwixt the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 7 to 13.

4. Before proceeding any further, it would be relevant to mention that notices upon respondent Nos. 7 to 13 were ordered to be issued by order, dated 10.12.1993. The A.D. in relation to 8 and 10 were received as would be apparent from office note dated 10.5.1994. Subsequently, the office put up note on 11.5.1994 stating that notices issued upon respondent Nos. 7 to 13 with A.D. had not been received and, therefore, query was made whether the notices upon respondents Nos. 7, 9, 12 and 13 be treated as valid service. So far as respondent No. 11 is concerned, the office pointed out that the notice upon him had returned unnerved. Accordingly, by order dated 12.5.1994, a Single Judge ordered that the notice issued on respondent Nos. 7, 9, 12 and 13 would be accepted as valid. So far as respondent No. 11 is concerned, an order was passed for issuance of fresh notice within two weeks failing which the application as against the said respondent No. 11 would stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. Since the petitioners did not take steps for service of notice on respondent No. 11, the writ petition, as per order dated 12.5.1994, stood dismissed for default as against the respondent No. 11. However, on 4.5.1995, a single Judge of this Court passed an order that the matter be put up after two weeks. On that day, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State prayed time to produce relevant documents to show as to whether the petitioners had been given notices before passing the impugned Order. It would be relevant to mention that till date, the private respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 have not appeared in this case although by an interim order dated 10.12.1993, a Division Bench of this Court had passed an order of status quo over the lands in dispute,

5. The petitioners have stated that Khata No. 2 of Village Amtaro in P.S. -Ganwa (now in the district of Giridih) was recorded in the name of ex-landlord Todal Narayan Singh in the last Servey Settlement Operation as his Bakast lands and all the lands in the aforementioned Khata were in his actual physical possession and he remained in peaceful possession of the same enjoying all rights, title and interest. While in that capac