IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13161 of 2009 SUBHADRA DEVI, Wife of Late Tej Narayan Singh, resident of Village & P.O: Bankatwa, P.S.: Jitna, District: East Champaran at Motihari. ……….. . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, East Champaran at Motihari, 3. The Anchal Adhikari, Ghorasahan Anchal, District: East Champaran, at Motihari 4. Bhaiya Ram, Son of Late Raghuni Ram, resident of Barharwa, P.S. Jitna, District: East Champaran, at Motihari, 5. Dhenuk Ram, Son of Late Bansi Ram, resident of Barharwa, P.S. Jitna, District: East Champaran, at Motihari, 6. Rudal Ram, Son of Late Hajirat Ram, resident of Barharwa, P.S. Jitna, District: East Champaran, at Motihari, 7. Husaini Ram, Son of Rudal Ram, resident of Barharwa, P.S. Jitna, District: East Champaran, at Motihari, 8. Mahesh Ram, Son of Late Hiraman Ram, resident of Barharwa, P.S. Jitna, District: East Champaran, at Motihari, 9. Bihari Ram, Son of Sant Ram, resident of Barharwa, P.S. Jitna, District: East Champaran, at Motihari. . . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 2/ 09.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner submits that he has purchased plot no. 86, khata no. 64 measuring 2.18 acres from one Bira Mahto in the year 1977, who in turn had purchased the same in the year 1974 from one Chandra Shekhar Jaiswal, who was the owner of the plot. Learned counsel submits that there was no Ceiling Proceeding against the aforesaid Chandra Shekhar Jaiswal. He submits that the Ceiling Proceeding in respect of the aforesaid land on the other hand was initiated against Shri Chandra Madho Prasad and Shri Dinanath Prasad, and in respect of his submission he refers to Annexure-3. Learned counsel for State submits that petitioner is challenging the aforesaid notification after a delay of about 20 years. After hearing the counsel for the parties, this court finds that - 2 - petitioner ought to have agitated his grievance under Section 45(B) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act before the appropriate authority instead of moving before this court. Thus, this writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move before the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance under Section 45 (B) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. With the aforesaid observation, this application is, accordingly, disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)