IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.128 of 2009 MD.YASIN, Son of Late Haji Fakir Mohammad, Resident of Village Sikrona, P.S. Kadwa, District Katihar. ……..Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE COLLECTOR, Katihar, District Katihar. 3.THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, Katihar. 4.THE CIRCLE OFFICER, Kadwa, District Katihar. 5.(a) RABINDRA CHAUDHARY @ JAYANT CHAUDHARY (Major Son). (b) AMRENDRA NATH CHAUDHARY @ JASSU CHAUDHARY (Major Son). Both Sons of Prem Kishori Devi, Resident of Village Durgaganj, P.S. Kadwa, District Katihar. ……….Respondents/Respondents ----------- 12. 19.04.2011 The delay in filing this Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Both the learned counsels have agreed that the final order can be passed. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.01.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13720/2004 by learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge passed the order in C.W.J.C. No. 13720/2004 dated 18.01.2008, taking into account the correctness of the Gazette Notification dated 31.08.2004 issued under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2 It is contended that the appellant is the bona fide purchasers of a piece of land, measuring an area of 2.27 Acres of land, Khata No. 331, Plot No. 500, situate at Mouja – Sikrona, through a registered sale deed dated 01.12.1968. It is also further contended that he had purchased the land from the Vendor, Prem Kishori Devi. Hence, the State had no knowledge of Land Ceiling proceeding with regard to transfer of land by original land holder Prem Kishori Devi. He chosen to come to this court. It has also been contended that in a similarly situated case where another purchaser has come to this court in C.W.J.C. No. 13422/2004 dated 9th August 2005, where he has purchased the land from the said Prem Kishori Devi. This court had directed the Ceiling Authorities to exclude the disputed land as described from the Gazette Notification dated 31.08.2004 issued under Section 15(1) of the Act and the earlier Notification dated 12.07.2004 issued under Section 11(1) of the Act. It has also been directed that the Authorities to proceed in the matter under Section 5(iii) of the Act after giving due notice to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the present appellant has contended that the Learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13720/2004 directed the petitioner to approach the Authorities (State Government) under Section 45(B) of the 3 Act, even though the writ petitioner is also similarly situated as of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13422/2004 dated 9th August 2005. The learned Government Pleader was contended that the order of the learned Single Judge can not be interferred as the appellant was directed to approach under Section 45(B) before the State Government. We have also an occasion to go through the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13422/2004 dated 9th August 2005, wherein the writ petitioner was also the purchaser from the said Mauza under the same Gazette Notification dated 31st August 2004 which has been questioned by the purchaser and learned Single Judge of this Court had quashed the Notification to the extent of the land purchased by the petitioner therein as contained in the order of the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13422/2004 and directed the authorities to follow the proceeding in the matter after giving due notice to the petitioner therein. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner being the petitioner appellant herein is also similarly situated as to the case of petitioner in the above C.W.J.C. No. 13422/2004, we are of the opinion that the writ petitioner appellant is entitled for the same relief as also of the writ petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 13422/2004. 4 In the above circumstances, following the orders passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13720/2004 which has become final, we set-aside the order of learned Single Judge and, accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The Ceiling Authorities are directed to exclude the disputed land as it appears in the Gazette Notification dated 31st August 2004 issued under Section 15(1) of the Act and the earlier Notification dated 12.07.2004 issued under Section 11(1) of the Act. It is also made clear that the Authorities is directed to proceed in the matter under Section 5(1)(3) of the Ceiling Act after giving due notice to the writ petitioner/appellant. With the above observation, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. Rajeev/Praveen (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)