IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20542 of 2010 1. RAMESHWAR RAM, son of Late Mukh Lal Ram 2. MAHANT RAM, son of Late Jagdeo Ram 3. NATHU RAM, son of Late Yadu Ram 4. AMERIKA MANJHI, son of Late Mukh Lal Ram, all resident of village Salempur, P.S. Shikarpur, West Champaran …PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND CEILING, BETTIAH 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, NARKATIAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN 5. AYODHYA RAI, SON OF LATE KASHI RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CAMAULI, P.S. BETTIAH, West Champaran …RESPONDENTS ----------- 02. 03.01.2011 After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State, this Court finds that the present application, at the instance of the petitioners, is premature. The petitioners were issued certain Purcha(s) pursuant to conclusion of land ceiling proceeding initiated against landholder, namely, Ayodhya Rai wherein 24.27 acres of land(s) were declared surplus. It appears that the purchasers of certain pieces of land(s) from aforesaid Ayodhya Rai approached the authority for inclusion of their lands in the land ceiling units allotted to the land-holders. Said claim was allowed by the Board of Revenue. It appears that thereafter step for cancellation of Purcha(s) was taken but the same was not concluded as a result whereof the purchasers preferred CWJC No. 11598 of 1998 (Amla Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) 2 in this Court. A Bench of this Court after hearing the parties directed the respondents including the respondent-Collector to take steps without further delay for cancellation of Parcha(s) after notice to the concerned respondents for which recommendations were already made by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners herein filed an appeal, being LPA No.1088 of 1999. A Division Bench of this Court, by a proceeding dated 11.09.2000, (Annexure-4), disposed of the said appeal whereby the order passed on the writ application was not interfered with. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 7070/2001 (Rameshwar Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) (Annexure-5). The Hon’ble Supreme Court after having heard the parties, disposed of the said appeal by the following order: “We have carefully examined the orders of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge of the High Court,, and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that no interference is required in the said order of the Division Bench of the High Court excepting that we direct that the Collector shall issue notice and give proper opportunity to place before him the stand of the appellants, which shall be considered by him on merits before passing any final order cancelling the parcha. The Collector shall decide the same within three months from the date of supply of this order to him. With this observation, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.” The respondent-authorities in the light of the order of the Supreme Court, granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioners herein and whereafter parcha(s) granted in favour of 3 the petitioners herein in the land ceiling case no.4/28/73-74 was/were cancelled. By the same order, the revenue authority was directed to forward proposal for allotment of land(s) in favour of the petitioners who were earlier granted parcha(s) in respect of the land(s) held by the landholders. This Court finds from the impugned order dated 4.11.2010 that the revenue authority has already been directed to place appropriate proposal(s) for settlement of land in favour of the writ petitioners. Having regard to the orders passed by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, this Court is satisfied that the direction made by this Court and duly approved by Hon’ble the Apex Court have already been carried out as the petitioners were afforded opportunity of hearing before cancellation of parcha(s) issued in their names. It further appears from the order that the revenue authority has already been directed to place appropriate proposal for settlement of land in favour of the writ petitioners. This Court is thus of the view that present application at the instance of the petitioner is premature. Let the authority take appropriate steps in the light of the last portion of the order dated 04.11.2010. The application is disposed of. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )