IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2615 of 2004 MAHANTH RAM SEWAK DAS, CHELA OF LATE MAHANTH RAM SIYA RAM DASJEE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE FATEHA, P.S. BACHCHUARA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. ------ PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRESIDENT, BIHAR HINDU RELIGIOUS TRUST BOARD, VIDYAPATI MARG, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BEGUSARAI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BEGUSARAI 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEGHRA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI 6. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI BACHCHUARA, BEGUSARAI 7. MAHANTH SATYA NARAYAN DAS (BHUTHRITHAKURBARI), SITUATED AT VILLAGE BHUTHARI, SAMASTIPUR, P.S. BACHCHUARA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI ------ RESPONDENTS ----------- 6 6.9.2010 This matter relates to a Ceiling Proceeding No. 22 of 1973-74 in which 7 acres of land which is said to belong to the petitioner were declared to be surplus. The ceiling proceeding was initiated against Bhuthari Asthal. Respondent no. 7 Satya Narayan Das is said to be the Mahanth of the Bhuthri Asthal. Petitioner’s case is that in the year 1964 about 7 acres of land was transferred in favour of the petitioner by the then Mahanth of Bhuthri Asthal. The petitioner has been paying rent to the State of Bihar after the said transfer. On perusal of the writ application, it appears that the petitioner had filed an objection which was disposed of on 30.11.1980 contained in Annexure-4 by which he had specifically stated that the lands as described in the order sheet, were his personal lands and ought not to be included in the ceiling proceedings. The Collector exempted 1.17 acres of land from the 2 ceiling proceedings. Thereafter, the second objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner in the year 1995. Apparently the petitioner had come up with the case that he was the Mahanth of Fateha Asthal and the lands in question belong to Fateha Asthal. The objection of the petitioner was taken into account and disposed of by the Collector, Begusarai by order dated 20.9.2004 wherein an enquiry was made with respect to the title of 7.59 acres of land. The question before the Collector was whether 7.59 acres of land was part of Bhuthri Asthal or was separate as claimed by the petitioner? On spot enquiry it was found that in fact the land was in possession of Bhuthri Asthal and the petitioner had no claim to the said lands. There is no material before this Court to adjudicate on the aforesaid issues. The order dated 20.9.1994 has not been challenged by the petitioner before the Member Board of Revenue and has thus attained finality. In the present writ application the petitioner has challenged both the declaration that lands belong to the Bhuthri Asthal and has prayed for quashing of Annexure-3 which is an order passed by the Additional Collector ordering for a notification to be made under Section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act in Case No. 22 of 1973-74. This Court does not think it proper to interfere in the order contained in Annexure-3. The petitioner may avail any other legal remedy, if so advised. This writ application is dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)