IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.705 of 2008 1. Ambika Ram, son of Ram Awatar Bind, resident of village- Gazipur, P.S-Cainpur, District-Kaimur. 2. Bachaci Ram alias Bachaei Chamar, S/o Late Shivnath Chamar, resident of village-Sikandarpur, P.S.-Chainpur-District- Kaimur. …………… Petitioners-Appellants Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Kaimur, Bhabhua 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Chainpur, P.S.- Chainpur, district, Kaimur 5. Gupteshwar Pandey, son of Late Narayan Pandey 6. Daya Shankar Pandey, Son Ram Anant Pandey 7. Gauri Shankar Pandey, son of Ram Anant Pandey All residents of village-Sikandarpur, P.S.-Chainpur, District- Kaimur ………….Respondents-Respondents. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Mritunjay Pd. Singh No. 2, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 5 &6: Mr. Kumar Sunil, Advocate For the Respondent No. 7: Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary For the State : Mr. R.C. Thakur, S.C. IV Mr. Kamal Kishor Singh Mr. K. Thakur, AC to SC IV. ------------- 10/ 10.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents. The writ Court has dismissed writ petition filed by the appellants in view of undisputed fact that declaration of certain lands as surplus in a ceiling proceeding was initially set aside by the Collector of the District exercising his power of appeal. Some purcha holders like the appellants had appeared before the Collector. Against the order of the Collector the appellants and other purcha holders preferred a revision before the Member Board of Revenue which was 2 dismissed on merits on 13.11.2007. Thereafter the writ petition filed by the appellants who are two out of 13 purcha holders has also been dismissed. Before us the main point canvassed is that the purcha holders were settled over different parts of the surplus land on 30.05.2001 and at that time there was no appeal or revision pending before any authority under the Ceiling Act and hence the Collector should not have held that there was no surplus land in the concerned family without impleading of the purcha holders as parties. We find from the copy of judgment and order dated 8.9.2003 passed in writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 10267 of 2001 that the private respondents and the land holders had filed that writ petition and had succeeded in getting the revisional order of the Member Board of Revenue dated 21.07.2001 quashed and thereafter the matter was remanded to the appropriate authority. It is clear from the judgment and order noticed above that on 21.07.2001 the revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue was still pending and during such pendency the purcha holders claimed to have got settlement over the alleged surplus land. Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act, 1961 does not empower the State Government or the Collector of the State Government to acquire any land as surplus land 3 unless there has been initial publication under Sub-Section (1) of Section 11 which has been made subject to appeal or revision, if any. Thus the acquisition of surplus land has been explicitly made subject to appeal or revision. In that view of the matter, the judgment and order of the writ Court taking the view that acquisition of land and its settlement as a surplus land was without jurisdiction cannot be faulted. The purcha holders do not have any right once the land holder obtained a declaration that there was no surplus land in the family. This view is supported by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dharnidhar Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1998 (1) P.L.J.R. 344. The facts of the present case are clear and the same cannot be equated with the facts in the case of Dadan Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2008 (1) P.L.J.R. (SC) 215 where concluded issues were subsequently re- opened under Section 45-B of the Act. In that case the Supreme Court held that the purcha-holders were required to be noticed before ordering for re-opening. The situation in this case is entirely different. We find no merit in this appeal, it is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.) 4