IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8949 of 2009 1. Anil Kumar Rai, 2. Sunil Kumar Rai, both sons of Late Umakant Rai, village Chunapur, PS K. Nagar, district Purnea – Petitioners. vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Collector, Purnea. 3. The Dy. Collector Land Reforms, Sadar, Purnea. 4. The Circle Officer, K. Nagar, District Purnea. 5. Sundar Kant Jha, son of Late Chitra Rekha Dai @ Late Chitra Rekha Devi, wife of Late Baidyanath Jha, village Rasodh, PS Banmankhi, district Purnea – Respondents. 2 30.7.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This court vide order, dated 12.8.1991 passed in CWJC No. 5052/1990 refused to interfere with the notification issued under section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms ( Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (‘the Act’ hereinafter) which was issued vide gazette notification no.2774, dated 24.7.1990. The petitioners’ claim is that they are the purchasers from the land holders Chitra Rekha Dai and Gunj Maya Dai. It has been argued that these lands have been declared as surplus without service of any notice on the purchasers. The court gave leave to the petitioners to file an application under section 37 or 45B of the Act within thirty days of the order. The petitioners did not file the application within time which was extended by this Court vide order dated 11.10.1991. The petitioners filed an application under Section 45B of the Act and Misc. Ceiling Case No. 317/1991-92 was instituted. The matter went on for several dates. On 11.2.1992 the petitioners 2 were directed to produce a copy of the Khatiyan. Again on 17.2.1992 and 25.2.1992 the petitioners were granted time for the said purpose. On 23.3.1992 the Misc. Ceiling Case No.317/1991-92 was dismissed for default. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Collector had hardly granted them time for one month for production of the Khatiyan which was in itself an unreasonable time. After the case was dismissed for default, the petitioners filed Misc. Case No.74/1992 for restoration which remained pending until it was dismissed on 7.7.1992. Thereafter a second application for restoration of Misc. Case No. 74/1992 was filed which was numbered as Misc. Ceiling Case No. 378/1992. On 24.11.1995 the Misc. case was dropped on the ground that the State Government had issued notification withdrawing the power of the Collector to hear the matter under section 45B of the Act. Accordingly Case No. 378/1992 was dropped. Later the said notification was withdrawn and Case No. 378/1992 was restored by order, dated 24.7.2007. The order sheet after restoration of the power of the Collector indicates that the petitioners appeared on each and every date. However, the Collector was busy with other work and as such no order could be passed. On 4.1.2008 the petitioners filed an application for time and the date was fixed on 19.2.2008. The order sheet does not indicate that the case came up on 19.2.2008 or thereafter. Finally, it was heard on 21.11.2008 by the Collector who rejected Misc. Case No. 378/1992 for restoration of Misc. Case No. 147/1992 on the ground that no 3 purpose would be served in restoring Misc. Case No. 147/1992 due to lapse of time. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the application for restoration i.e. No.378/1992 was restored, the Collector ought to have restored Misc. Case No. 147/1992 which was filed for restoration of the original application filed under section 45B of the Act numbered as Case No. 317/1991-1992. It is also submitted that the petitioners were to produce the Khatiyan before the Collector to show that the lands which they had purchased belonged to the land holders. The submission is that in the ceiling proceeding the land holders from whom the petitioners had purchased the land had already been recognized as bona fide land holders of the land in question and on that basis their lands were declared as surplus land and, therefore, no purpose could have been served in insisting that the petitioners should produce the Khatiyan. Moreover, the Collector should have called for the records to verify these facts. In any event it is apparent that no such argument was ever advanced before the Collector nor were the land holders given a notice in the proceeding under section 45B of the Act and, therefore, the submission is that the proceeding under section 45B of the Act was dismissed only on the ground that the petitioners had not appeared on a single date which according to the counsel is unjustified. Learned State counsel vehemently argued that the proceeding was concluded as far back as on 24.7.1990 and after nineteen years the petitioners are agitating their rights to be reheard in 4 the matter. This court finds that the reasons pointed out by the State are not justified in view of the fact that the petitioners had moved before the Collector under section 45B of the Act in 1991 and it is one of those cases where the applications have been rejected for non- appearance only on a single date and as such this court finds it proper in the interest of justice that the order dated 21.11.2008 should be quashed. The respondent Collector, Purnea is directed to dispose of Misc. Case No.378/1992 on its own merits. This writ petition, thus, stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)