IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13429 of 2001 1. Shatrughan Prasad Singh son of Anant Prasad Singh. 2. Tarakant Jha son of Madan Mohan Jha both resident of village-Bino Babhangama P.S.- Supaul District Supaul……..Petitioners. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms cum Bakast Restoration Officer, Supaul. 3. Saryug Mandal son of Harizan Mandal resident of village-Bina P.S. + District-Supaul……Respondents. ----------- 11. 28.7.2011 Heard the parties. On behalf of the petitioner, a challenge has been made to the validity of Bihar Koshi Area (Restoration of Land to the Raiyats) Act of 1951, (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’) on the ground that it affects the property right of the petitioner which was earlier available to him under article 31 of the Constitution of India and is now available under Article-300A. A perusal of Section 7 of the Act provides for the procedure, if the proceeding initiated at the instance of former raiyat is not dropped on the basis of objection which may be raised by the landlord under Section 5 of the Act. Section 7 (1) (b) shows that if the proceedings are not dropped, the Collector shall determine the amount which shall be payable by the raiyat for restoration to him of such land. Hence, it cannot be held that there is no provision for compensation to be paid by the raiyat to the landlord. As to the adequacy etc. of the amount determined by the Collector, definitely, an objection may be taken at an appropriate stage. 2 In the present proceeding, we find that the grounds taken for declaring the Acts ultra-vires are unsustainable as noticed above or are in the nature of mere objections on various technical grounds such as:- 1. The application must be by a former raiyat & not by his heirs etc.. 2. The law of limitation should apply to such a proceeding. 3. The required notification for the area in question under Section 1 is wanting, 4. The Rules required for several procedures under the Act have not been framed. We have noticed that there is a clear lack of necessary averments to support the aforesaid objections and that by a recent enactment through Bihar Repeal of Laws (which are no longer needed) Act, 2006, many laws including the Act in question have been repealed but pending proceedings have been saved under Section 2 (2) of the Repealing Act (Bihar Act 14 of 2006). Having considered the grounds raised before us and the relevant facts, we are of the considered view that in the present proceeding, the Act cannot be declared ultra-vires. However, since major part of the pleadings are by 3 way of objection to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 3 of the Act, liberty is granted to the petitioner that he may raise all his objections before the concerned authority by way of objection under Section 5 of the Act. Since passing of final order in the previous proceeding was stayed by this Court, in the interest of justice we grant an opportunity to the petitioner to file objection under Section 5 within a period of 8 weeks from today. The same shall be considered by the Collector under the Act on its own merit in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Collector under the Act, he can pursue his remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Mkc/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Shivaji Pandey, J.)