IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18550 of 2011 1. Shamsher Alam , 2. Alauddin Md. Hussain, Both sons of Md. Hussain, residents of Vill-Bhermara Balua Tola, P.S-Mansahi, Dist-Katihar, 3. Bibi Sabila Khatoon wife of late Md. Nasiruddin, 4. Md. Farooque Azam son of Abdul Mannan, 5. Md. Sagir Ahmad son of Jarjish Ali, 6. Md. Afaque Alamson of Maulvi Anwar Alam, All residents of Vill-Bhermara Balua Tola, P.S- Mansahi, Dist-Katihar, … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar Through The Collector Katihar, 2. The Additional Collector, Katihar, 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Katihar, 4. The Circle Officer, Mansahi Dist-Katihar , 5. Mahadeo Oraon, 6. Sahdeo Oraon, both sons of late Durga Oraon, 7. Lakhan Oraon son of late Rajendra Oraon, 8. Lakhendra Oraon son of late Govind Oraon, All residents of Vill-Bhermara Balua Tola, P.S-Mansahi, Dist-Katihar, …. Respondents For the Petitioners: Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate For the State: AC to AAG 3 … 2 11.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Petitioners seek quashing of order dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Katihar in Miscellaneous Case No. 3/98-99 whereby a direction has been issued to the respondent- Circle Officer, Mansahi to settle the raiyati lands of the 2 petitioners in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 8 if they are found eligible under section 27 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”). It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that Miscellaneous Case No. 3/98-99 was filed by respondent no. 5 and others against the State of Bihar and others. It is contended that the petitioners also appeared in that case and were heard. The aforesaid case was filed for settlement of the lands acquired as per the notification under section 15(1) of the Act in favour of the private respondents. The petitioners contested the same being purchasers of the disputed land in the year 1985. However, the authority concerned has rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that there was already a notification published under section 15(1) of the Act in the year 1976 declaring the acquisitions and unless that is modified by the competent authority the petitioners’ claim for accepting the lands in question belonging to them and not to distribute the same would not be tenable. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners’ plea that their vendors acquired the land prior to 3 1959 and other grounds can now only be seen by a competent authority if a petition is preferred under section 45-B of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case.. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners be permitted to file a proper application under section 45-B of the Act before the competent authority. Accordingly, this writ application, without into the merit of the case of the petitioners, is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file an application under section 45-B of the Act before the appropriate forum. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)