IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14305 of 2008 Shobha Kant Jha, son of Late Kali Kant Jha, village Dwasai, PS Dandkhora, District Katihar – petitioner. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar through the Secretary Land Reforms & Revenue, Patna. (2) The Collector, Katihar. (3) The Addl. Collector, Katihar. (4) The Subdivisional Officer, Katihar. (5) The Land Reforms Dy. Collector, Katihar. (6) The Anchal Adhikari, Dandkhora, Katihar. (7) The Supdt. Of Police, Katihar. (8) The Officer Incharge, Dandkhora police station, Katihar – Respondents. 6 16.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying therein to restore his possession with respect to 18.20 acres of land which were allowed to be retained in Ceiling Case No. 72/1972-73. The lands were given in possession of the Parchadhari without waiting for the proceedings to come to an end and even before the notification under section 11(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. This court on 1.7.2009 had asked the Collector, Katihar along with the Circle Officer, Dandkhora to verify the facts by visiting the spot. The order was not complied with. Ultimately the Additional Collector was summoned in the court and after that the petitioner could get possession of the lands allowed to be retained by him in ceiling proceedings. The petitioner was dispossessed from the lands in question soon after the notification under section 4 of the Act, that is, some time in the year 1980-81. The petitioner ran from pillar to post to ventilate his grievances. After almost twenty years he was handed back possession of the land. This court, therefore, is inclined to grant costs in this case. The State counsel vehemently opposes the grant of costs on 2 the ground that section 40(2) of the Act protects the action of the State. Section 40(2) of the Act reads as follows : “(2) No suit or other legal proceeding shall lie against the State Government for any damage caused or likely to be caused or for any injury suffered or likely to be suffered by virtue of any provisions of this Act, or by anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder.” Section 40 of the Act envisages that the action of the State Government would be in accordance with law or in the interpretation of the law, which may be wrongly given, but will be presumed to have been done in good faith. In the present case there is no question of wrong or misplaced interpretation of law. The law itself specifically lays down that when an objection of any kind preferred under sub-section (3) of section 10 it has been disposed of, and then the Collector shall make alteration in the draft statement if there is any surplus land. It does not envisage that even before the issuance of draft statement under section 11(1) the State / Collector / Land Acquisition Officer should distribute the lands without declaring the lands to be surplus, much less, they can distribute the land which has been allowed to the land holder. In view of the facts of this case the State of Bihar through the Land Reforms Department is directed to pay a cost of Rs.1 lac to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this case. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)