IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1854 of 2004 1. Md.Sulaiman @ Md. Sulaiman Ali, son of Sharafat Hussain 2. Md. Shahabuddin, son of Late Saghiruddin 3. Pawan Devi, wife of Ram Narayan Prasad 4. Md. Firoz Alam, son of Md. Sulaiman 5. Shri Sudin Yadav, son of Late Ram Bihari Yadav, All residents of Village Balha, Police Station and Anchal Mansi District Khagaria.........................Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Khagaria 3. The Additional Collector (Land Ceiling )-cum- A.D.M., Khagaria 4. The D.C.L.R., Khagaria 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Mansi, Khagaria 6. Md. Halim @ Tahseen , son of not known, resident of Mohalla - Dilawarpur, District Munger 7. Asharfi Sada, son of Chetu Sada 8. Sahdeo Sada, Son of Chetu Sada 9. Rameshwar Sada, son of Misri Sada 10. Yogendra Sada, son of Babjan Sada 11. Dheena Paswan, son of Jahuri Paswan 12. Narayan Paswan, son of Rameshwar Paswan Nos. 7 to 12, residents of village Balha, P.S. and Anchal Mansi, District Khagaria...Respondents ----------- 5 19.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This writ application was filed in 2004. Petitioners have prayed in this writ application for direction to the respondents to provide protection to them in growing and harvesting the crops on the land and their possession. - 2 - Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are purchasers from the original landholder. Initially, the land was declared surplus land of the landholder and purchas were issued to private respondents. However, subsequently, in a fresh proceeding, it was held that the land was not surplus and, therefore, purchas were cancelled. Still due to inaction on the part of the Karmchari, rent receipts were being issued to private respondents as a result of which possession of these petitioners was being disturbed. He submits that a report was also submitted by the Circle Officer, Mansi to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Khagaria informing him that purchas of the private respondents had already been cancelled. Therefore, no rent receipts could be issued in their favour. He submits that in spite of the same, petitioners were being disturbed and, therefore, this writ application was filed. Six years have passed since date of filing of the writ application. It does not appear that further cause of action has arisen to petitioners to press this writ application. - 3 - Therefore, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities of the District in case they are still being disturbed or have apprehension of any disturbance at the hands of the private respondents. If they approach the authorities of the District in the matter, the concerned authorities will be obliged to get an enquiry held and pass appropriate orders to safeguard right, title and possession of the party concerned. B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)