Judgment 1. Appellant Mostt. Shila Devi in this appeal is the daughter-in-law of one Bechan Paswan whose privileged tenancy under the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been cancelled. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned writ court dated 11.12.2001 passed in CWJC No. 15326 of 2001 by which the learned writ court upheld the order of the Collector of the district cancelling the parcha issued in favour of Benchan Paswan in the year 1969, as the same had been obtained by fraudulent mean, suppressinig the material facts and claiming himself to be a landless person and also in view of the fact that after the death of the original parcha holder, the appellant-writ petitioner and other heirs of Bechan Paswan had left the village concerned and were residing in a different village. 3. The learned writ court also found that respondent no. 6 to the writ petition one Prem Shankar Tribedi, who had filed the petition for cancellation of the parcha was one of the heirs of original landlord Uma Shankar Tribedi, on whose land parcha was distributed behind his back. 4. Admittedly, the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act is intended by the State legislature to improve the lot of weaker sections of the society and provide them land so that they can have their own dwellings. In the present case, a fact which is not in dispute is that the originial parcha holder was not a landless person and after his death in 1980 his sons and daughters-in-law and other members of the family had left the village in question and were residing in a different village. 5. The purpose for which lands are allotted under the present Act is not satisfied as the sons of Bechan Paswan had shifted from the village where the land had been allotted. The said parcha has also been obtained through misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. 6. The learned writ court after looking into the records and the subsequent inspection report rightly held that the Collector of the district had rightly cancelled the parcha standing in the name of Bechan Paswan after hearing his heirs who had appeared before him as a right which has been obtained fraudulently cannot be sustained. 7. 6. The learned writ court after looking into the records and the subsequent inspection report rightly held that the Collector of the district had rightly cancelled the parcha standing in the name of Bechan Paswan after hearing his heirs who had appeared before him as a right which has been obtained fraudulently cannot be sustained. 7. The contention of the appellant that the Collector had no power to re-open the matter is also of no substance as the Act itself provides that the Collector can on his own motion or on a petition call for the records and after being satisfied, may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 8. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, it stands dismissed.