IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12553 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Mishra S/O Late Shankar Mishra R/O Vill.- Dhakjari, P..S- Arer, Dist.- Madhubani,… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary Land Reforms Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Collector, Madhubani , 3. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling Madhubani, 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Benipatti, Distt.- Madhubani, 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Benipatti Distt.- Madhubani, … … Respondents For the Petitioner: Mr. Bidhanesh Mishra, Advocate Ms. Tanuja Mishra, Advocate For the State: Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC to GP 12 -------- 6 02.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims to be purchaser after 09.09.1970 from one Bhal Chandra Mishra against whom Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1973-74 had been initiated and there had already been a notification under section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”), however, for the purpose of exclusion of the transfer made by him after 09.09.1970 the landlord has moved before the Board of Revenue by filing Case No. 167 of 1993 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.08.1995 whereby, though refusing to 2 exclude the transferred land from the purview of the ceiling proceeding, it has been observed by the Member, Board of Revenue that those lands ought to have been included in the lands which have been found permissible to be held by the land-holder – whether he desires or does not desire. Thus, those lands which have been transferred should not have been declared surplus rather the same should have been declared as lands chosen by the landlord to be retained by him under section 9(2) of the Act. A direction to that effect was given to the College to make a fresh notification under section 15(1) of the Act after complying the above direction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter nothing has happened though Case No. 18 of 1996-97 remained pending before the Additional Collector, Madhubani but by order dated 27.02.2004 as contained in Annexure 3 the Additional Collector, Madhubani has opined that the purchased lands should be held by the land holder under section 9(2) of the Act should be made free from acquisition and recommendation has been sent to the Collector, Madhubani. However, as nothing has happened, the present writ application has 3 been filed. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating therein that the entire original record is missing. In Annexures A and A/1 it has been stated that administrative step is being taken and one FIR has been lodged in respect of the same. A stand has also been taken that a notification under section 15(1) of the Act could also not be located, however, it is very surprising that though the notification under section 15(1) of the Act is also published in gazette, it could not be located. In above view of the matter, this application is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2 to reconstruct the file of Miscellaneous Case No. 18 of 1996- 97 and locate the notification under section 15(1) of the Act published in the gazette and thereafter pass necessary order also taking into consideration the order dated 30.08.1995, a copy of which is appended as Annexure 8, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in Case No. 167 of 1993 expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order, as the matter has remained pending at his end for 4 more than a decade. It is expected that the petitioner would also cooperate in the matter and would be well represented on the date(s) fixed by the respondent no. 2 and if that does not happen he will be entitled to pass any order even in absence of the petitioner on its own merit and in accordance with law. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)