JUDGMENT : SANDEEP KUMAR, J. In this case, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the order passed by respondent no.3, Collector, Khagaria-cum-Second Appellate Authority of Public Grievance Redressal Act dated 17.01.2018 be quashed. (ii) That the respondent no.7 Circle Officer, Parbatta, may be directed to declare the petitioner as local resident of Parbatta on the basis of available material on record and produced by the petitioner. (iii) That the Circle Officer, Parbatta may be directed to restore the possession of the petitioner on land measuring 10 decimal, Mauza-Rahimpur, Thana No.373, Khata No.01, Khesra No.18, Tauzi No.525 by verifying their (petitioner) purcha and rent receipt and other documents which was issued by themselves (respondents). (iv) That any other relief or reliefs may be allowed which will be just, proper and equitable on the opinion of this Hon’ble Court.” 2. The brief facts of this case, as stated in the writ petition, are that in the year 2000-01 the petitioner was provided parcha for 10 decimals of land in Mauza-Rahimpur, Thana No.373, Khata No.01, Khesra No.18, Tauzi No.525, by the Circle Officer, Parbatta through Case No.04 of 2000-01. After issuance of Parcha, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the records and rent receipts were also issued in his name, which is still existing but suddenly, his neighbours (private respondent nos.8, 9 & 10) started creating trouble and forcefully evicted the petitioner from his land and captured the said land in the year 2009-10. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition before the Circle Officer, Parbatta, for restoration of possession of his land. The Circle Officer, Parbatta, vide letter dated 10.01.2011 referred the matter to D.C.L.R. Gogri. Thereupon, Land Dispute Case No.26 of 2010-11 was instituted. The learned DCLR, Gogri, after hearing the case, passed the order dated 13.07.2011 and rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not a resident of Parbatta rather he is a resident of Gram Panchayat Agarpur Machipur, Block-Goradih, District-Bhagalpur. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a petition before the Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Gogari for getting possession of his parcha land, who vide order dated 12.08.2017 directed the Circle Officer, Parbatta to enquire into the matter and verify the plot. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a petition before the Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Gogari for getting possession of his parcha land, who vide order dated 12.08.2017 directed the Circle Officer, Parbatta to enquire into the matter and verify the plot. When nothing was done by the Circle Officer, Parbatta in compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed First Appeal before the A.D.M., Khagaria-cum-1st Appellate Authority for getting the possession of his land. The A.D.M. Khagaria-cum-1st Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.11.2017 directed the Circle Officer, Parbatta, to restore the possession of the petitioner's land. Relevant part of the aforesaid order reads as under:- ^^bl rjg tc vihykFkhZ dks o"kZ 2000&01 esa gh cUnkscLrh dk ipkZ izkIr gks pqdk gS rks oSlh fLFkfr esa tc rd l{ke izkf/kdkj ds Lrj ls mls jn~n ugh dj fn;k tkrk] rc rd vihykFkhZ ml Hkwfe ij n[ky ikus ds gdnkj gSa] blls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA fdlh Hkh fLFkfr esa ipkZ/kkjh ds ckgjh gksus dh otg ls n;kjke jk; ds dCts dks oS/k ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrkA ,slh fLFkfr esa vapy vf/kdkjh] ijcRrk dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os mYysf[kr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa vko';d dkjZokbZ djrs gq, vihykFkhZ dks canksoLr Hkwfe ij fu;ekuqlkj n[ky fnykuk lqfuf'pr djsaA d`r dkjZokbZ ls v/kksgLrk{kjh dks Hkh fnukad 11-12-17 rd voxr djk;k tk,A^^ 2.1. When the petitioner was deprived of his land even after the order of the A.D.M. Khagaria-cum-1st Appellate Authority, the petitioner approached the District Magistrate, Khagaria-cum-Second Appellate Authority but the District Magistrate, Khagaria vide order dated 17.01.2018 dismissed the petitioner’s claim on the ground that the petitioner is an inhabitant of another district on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, Parbatta. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted parcha of his land by the competent authority and the same was never denied by any official respondents and the District Magistrate, Khagaria has erred in relying on the report of the Circle Officer, Parbatta and without considering the numerous documents provided by the petitioner regarding his address proof of Parbatta has passed the impugned order. He further submits that the District Magistrate, Khagaria did not consider the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Public Grievance Appellate Authority as well as 1st Appellate Authority, Gogri wherein they have categorically stated that parcha was legally issued to the petitioner for the land in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the supplementary affidavit the petitioner has attached the voter list of the year 1966 in which at serial no.1091 the name of the father of the petitioner has been mentioned as Ghoogly Rai. 5. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed by the State. In the counter affidavit, the ground taken by the State is that since the petitioner is resident of Bhagalpur district his parcha is not valid. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties. The only ground on which the parcha of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent authority is that the petitioner is resident of Bhagalpur district and therefore, he cannot be granted parcha in the district of Khagaria. 7. Section 4 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 provides that for granting of parcha a person should have a permanent tenancy in the homestead held by him at any time continuously for a period of one year. Apart from the above, Section 2 (i) of Bihar Privilege Persons Homestead Tenancy Act, 1947 defines ''privileged person'' to mean a person (1) who is not a proprietor, tenure holder, under tenure holder or a Mahajan, and (2) Who, besides his homestead, holds no other land or holds any such land not exceeding one acre. 8. In section 8 of the aforesaid Act, the grounds on which a privileged person may be ejected has been provided, which reads as under:- “8. Grounds on which a privileged tenant may be ejected. (1) A privileged tenant shall be liable to ejectment on the following grounds and not otherwise, namely - (a) on the ground that he has used the holding or any part thereof in a manner which renders the holding unit for the purposes of the tenancy. (b) on the ground that he has failed to pay the rent of the holding for two years:” 9. In the aforesaid section, it has nowhere been mentioned that parcha of any privileged person can be cancelled on the ground of residence of another district. (b) on the ground that he has failed to pay the rent of the holding for two years:” 9. In the aforesaid section, it has nowhere been mentioned that parcha of any privileged person can be cancelled on the ground of residence of another district. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner cannot be denied his right as a parcha holder only on the basis of the contention of the State that he is a resident of Bhagalpur district when the document shows otherwise. Moreover, as per Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, it will appear that the petitioner falls under the category of privileged person and therefore, he has rightly been granted the parcha and this right has not been confined to a person of a particular district but the person the only prerequisite for grant of parcha in that he should be a privileged person. The petitioner is a genuine parcha holder and the parcha of the petitioner can only be cancelled on the ground as mentioned in Section-8 of the aforesaid Act and it has not been mentioned Section-8 of the Act that Parcha can be cancelled on the ground that a person is a non-resident of a particular district for which parcha is being granted. 10. In view of the above discussion, this application is allowed. 11. Accordingly, impugned order dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Collector, Khagaria is hereby quashed. The respondents shall treat the parcha of the petitioner as valid and he shall not be disturbed from the land in question for which he has been granted parcha. 12. If the petitioner has been evicted from his parcha land, the Collector, Khagaria shall take steps for restoration of the possession of the petitioner over the land in question and the possession should be restored to the petitioner within one month of the date of communication/production of a copy of this order.