JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Hari Shankar Rai for the petitioners, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No. 22 for respondent nos.1 to 5, and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Pandey for respondent nos. 6 and 8. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.4.2007 (Annexure-6). passed by the learned Additional Collector, Buxar, in Homestead Settlement Appeal No. 52 of 2006-2007 (Shri Ramashish Singh vs. Ganesh Singh & Ors.), whereby he has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioners under the provisions of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), upholding the order dated 13.2.2004 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Buxar, in Homestead Settlement Case No. 11/2002-2003. The petitioners on the one hand, and respondent nos. 6 to 8 on the other, claim Homestead settlement of the lands in question from the State of Bihar. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have placed on record their counter affidavit and have supported the case of respondent nos. 6 and 8 herein. 2. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without consideration of the relevant local inspection reports. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 to 8 have supported the impugned order. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It is with respect to settlement of following land: 4. The lands in question is admittedly a Gairmazrua Aam land, owned by the State of Bihar, and the question for consideration is whether the State of Bihar settled the same in favour of the petitioners or respondent nos. 6 to 8. 5. Ganesh Singh is respondent no. 6. Kamalawati Devi is respondent no. 7, and Maina Kuear alias Devi is respondent no. 8. The petitioners filed an application under the provisions of the Act for declaration that they are the Purcha holders under the Act from the State of Bihar, meaning thereby that the State of Bihar has settled the lands in question in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8. The same was rejected by order dated 13.2.2004 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Buxar. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred the appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order, and the order of the learned first authority (Annexure-3) has been upheld. 6. Respondent Nos. 6 to 8. The same was rejected by order dated 13.2.2004 (Annexure-3), passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Buxar. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred the appeal which has been rejected by the impugned order, and the order of the learned first authority (Annexure-3) has been upheld. 6. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have stated in their counter affidavit that the Government revenue records show that the lands in question have been settled under the provisions of the Act in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8. Both the authorities have concurrently found to the same effect. In that view of the matter it appears that the lands have really been settled in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8. 7. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.