IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10341 of 2007 Jagdeo Singh, S/O Late Ramgahan Singh, resident of Village- Kharwaniya, P.O. Kakariya, P.S. Dhansoin, District- Buxar --------- Petitioner. Versus. 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Buxar, District Buxar 3. Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar,District-Buxar. 4. Circle Officer Rajpur, Buxar. 5. Banarsi Ram S/O Late Sheopujan Rai, resident of Village + P.S. Chansoin, District- Buxar ----- Respondents. ------------- 2. 17.2.2009 Heard Mr. B.J. Ojha for the petitioner, and Mrs. Kumari Amrita, learned Standing Counsel No.1(Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.6.2007 (Annexure-6), passed by the learned Collector of the district Buxar in Case No. 123 of 2003/357 of 2006 (Jagdeo Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar), whereby the petitioner’s application for inclusion of the land purchased by the petitioner within the option of the land-holders under section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been rejected. It arises out of land ceiling proceedings. The State of Bihar has placed on record its counter affidavit. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the land ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioner’s vendor, and 2.22 ½ acres of lands were declared surplus by order dated 13.1.2001, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar. The petitioner, being the purchaser from the land-holder, submitted an application before the learned Collector stating therein that he purchased 2.49 2 acres of land, bearing Khata No.87, from Banarsi Rai, by six registered sale deeds on 22.7.1997, 9.7.1999 and 1.6.1001. In the meanwhile, as stated hereinabove, 2.22 ½ acres of land were declared surplus by order dated 13.1.2001, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Buxar. The learned Collector has rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that he purchased the land without prior permission of the appropriate authority, and purchased lands which have been declared surplus. It appears to me that the six registered documents appeared to be a malafide act on the part of the petitioner and his vendor, inasmuch as the lands so alienated in favour of the petitioner are not within the ceiling area of the land-holder. It is purpotive act to defeat the aims and objects of law. Discretionary, prerogative writ jurisdiction can never be exercised in favour of persons who purposely take steps to defeat the provisions of the Act. The writ petition is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )