JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Durganand Jha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with Mr. Amrendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel and Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-V learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 4.6.2000 passed by the Collector, Katihar in Misc. No. 539 of 2000. 3. Short facts of the case are as follows: The petitioner filed an application before the Circle Officer, Falka for granting Basgit Parcha for the lands appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 664(p) under R.S. Khata No. 372 of Mouza Dumar. Upon such application, Case No. 52/86-97 was instituted. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Anchal Adhikari, Katihar on 17.12.1999 by speaking order. However, the very next date on 18.12.1999 again an application was accepted from the petitioner by the Anchal Adhikari concerned from the petitioner and an order was passed in his favour issuing homestead parcha in his favour. That order was challenged before the Collector, Katihar in P.P.H.T. Case No. 727/99-2000. The Collector held that the aforesaid order cancelling parcha by the Anchal Adhikari would have only been challenged in accordance with law and the Circle Officer concerned had no power to review the same. Thus, the subsequent order dated 18.12.1999 was quashed by the Collector concerned. The petitioner then filed a writ application before this Court bearing no. C.W.J.C. No. 1026 of 2000 on 29.9.2000. The petitioner was permitted by this Court to withdraw this application to enable him to seek other remedy available before the Collector. Learned counsel for the petitioner after some argument sought permission to withdraw the writ application to enable the petitioner to seek other remedy available before the Collector. The prayer was allowed and application was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since this court has allowed him to approach the Collector then the only course upon to the Collector was to set aside the earlier order and remit back the matter to the Anchal Adhikari for fresh consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that parcha was issued in favour of the wife of the petitioner, namely, Asha Devi. She has not been impleaded as party in the cases. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that parcha was issued in favour of the wife of the petitioner, namely, Asha Devi. She has not been impleaded as party in the cases. 6. I do not find any force in the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner inasmuch as the Collector concerned, by the impugned order, has only decided that the order refusing to issue homestead parcha by the Anchal Adhikari was legal, valid and thus he has not found any merit in the case of the petitioner. So far the next subsequent date alongwith the parcha in favour of the petitioner is concerned, the Collector has already held that there is no provision of review of the earlier order by the Anchal Adhikari in the Act. Learned counsel could not show any provision or authority in his favour that the Anchal Adhikari has no (sic) authority to review his earlier order refusing to grant parcha and substituting the same by another order granting parcha in favour of the concerned person. Therefore, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Collector concerned. 7. So far thehext submission of the petitioner is concerned, for that petitioner himself is to be blamed as he has filed miscellaneous case no. 539 of 2000 but he has not impleaded his wife Asha Devi in that proceeding. Earlier writ application was also filed by him only. His wife Asha Devi has not challenged any order before any authority. 8. In view of the aforesaid submission, I do not find any merit in this application and as such the same is dismissed.