IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15987 of 2007 1. ABUL HASAN, SON OF LATE ABDUL HAKIM ANSARI. 2. KALAM ANSARI, SON OF LATE AMIRUL HASAN. 3. RIZWAN ANSARI, SON OF LATE ALI HASAN. 4. MD. MOHIUDDIN ANSARI, SON OF LATE ABDUL HAKIM ANSARI. 5. AYUB ANSARI, SON OF LATE ABDUL HAKIM ANSARI. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE-DUNGRAL, POLICE STATION-MATIYARIA, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. ……………………………………………………..PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, (CEILING), BETTIAH, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. …………………………………………………….... RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s. B.N. Mishra and B.K. Mishra, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Ajay, SC-III (Ceiling). ------------ 8. 2.9.2009. Mr. Ajay, SC-III (Ceiling) appears for the State and files supplementary counter affidavit. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent authorities to restore back the vacant possession of the lands, described in paragraph-1 of the application, to the petitioners. Earlier, the aforesaid lands were the subject matter of Ceiling Case No.31/1973-74 which were declared surplus and distributed amongst the other landless persons. The proceedings aforesaid was challenged by the petitioner and in Case No.129 of 2002, before the Board of Revenue, Bihar. It had come to the conclusion that the lands aforesaid deserved exclusion - 2 - from the Notification under Section 11 of the Bihar Land Ceiling (Fixation of the Ceiling Areas and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Ceiling Act”). Subsequently, the Additional Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah had passed the order for exclusion of the lands by amending the Notification under Section 11 of the Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after the exclusion of those lands from the ceiling proceedings as aforesaid, the possession thereof is yet to be restored back to the petitioners. It is an admitted position that by publication of Notification under Section 15(1) of the Act, the lands were declared surplus and were distributed amongst the landless persons. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the decision in their favour by the authorities directing to exclude the lands concerned from the ceiling proceedings would be meaningless if the lands are not restored back to the petitioners. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State wherein stand has been taken that in the year 2002 itself, the lands in question were distributed amongst 85 landless persons. Now 500 persons belonging to those families are in possession thereof. It is also stated that serious law and order problems is already existing in the area. Thus, contention is that the issue of shifting those persons to some other land will have to be dealt with very carefully. The statement has been made on behalf of the State that the aforesaid exercise will take further six months’ time. - 3 - Since the State had agreed that it would shift the persons, in favour of whom purcha was earlier issued, to some other land and would also restore back the possession of the land in question to the petitioners within six months, the petitioners now, have no other grievance to be redressed. In view of the aforesaid submissions and stand taken by the State, I dispose of this writ application with a direction to the State to restore back possession of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners within eight months from today. This writ application, accordingly, stands disposed of. P.S. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan,J)