IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13441 of 2001 1.MAHANTH RAMASHRAY DAS,CHELA MAHANTH JAGARNATH DAS, SEBAIT OF 108 SHRI RAM JANAKI TEMPLE, SATLAKHA TOLA KAKSYAR, POLICE STATION RAHIKA, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 2.RAM PUNIT DAS ------Petitioners Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3.THE COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI. 4.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI. 5.THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI. 6.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADHUBANI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. 7.THE CIRCLE OFFICER, RAHIKA ANCHAL, DISTRICT MADHUBANI. ------Respondents ----------- 15. 24.2.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.7.2001 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) in Revision Case No.17 of 2001, as contained in Annexure 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it is not a case of granting any exemption under section 29 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Ceiling Act”) at any point of time. As a matter of fact, the petitioners were granted two units; one for themselves and another for the deity and as such the land in question was within the ceiling area, which would be appearing from perusal of the order dated 10.7.1984 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar Madhubani (respondent no.5) in Ceiling Case 2 No.7/73-74, as contained in Annexure 1. However, the mention of section 29 of the Ceiling Act, which talks of exemption on being referred in the order, has been crept in as to whether the petitioner was also allowed exemption under the aforesaid provisions of section 29 whereas the petitioners were granted two units and as such there could be no occasion for granting any exemption. It is further submitted that this Court as per its order dated 19.3.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12005 of 1996, as contained in Annexure 3, gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the Board of Revenue under section 32(3) of the Ceiling Act. Thereafter the revision application was filed. However, the revision application was rejected taking note of the submissions of the State that the matter was finally disposed of way back in the year 1995 and the revision application has been filed after long delay and, as such, the revision application was dismissed without considering the merits of the matter in issue. It is further submitted that the revision application was filed in the light of the order passed by this Court, as contained in Annexure 3, and as such the revisional authority should have considered the points raised by the petitioners on merit. Mr Ajay, learned Standing Counsel (Ceiling) appearing for the State submits that it is not a case of allowing two units; one for the petitioners and another for the deity. As a matter of fact, the petitioners were allotted one unit and exemption in terms of section 29 of the Ceiling Act having not been approved by the State Government, the exemption allowed to the petitioners was not acted 3 upon. Considering the submissions of the parties, there appears that the issue involved over the question is with regard to whether the petitioners were allowed two units, as claimed by them, relying upon the order passed in the Land Ceiling Case No.7/73-74, vide order dated 10.7.1984 (Annexure 1) or one unit plus the exemption. I am of the view that the Board of Revenue, being the final court of facts in the revenue matters, may consider the revision application, vide Revision Case No.17 of 2001 filed by the petitioners, in accordance with law considering the rival case of the parties as well as the relevant documents, if any, produced in support of the respective parties. The petitioners will be at liberty to file within a period of four weeks from today, a supplementary revision application, along with the stay application, in continuity of Original Revision Case No.17 of 2001, which shall also be taken into consideration while disposing of the revision application as also the objection, if any, filed by the State. Accordingly, the order dated 28.7.2001 passed in Revision Case No.17 of 2001, as contained in Annexure 4, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.2) for passing the order afresh in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the order. Till the disposal of the stay application, the possession of the petitioners over the lands appertaining to plot no.55, 62, 64, 58, 4 184, 186, 208, 218, 254, 227, 25, 343, detailed in the order dated 26.8.2003 passed in this case, will not be disturbed. The application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)