IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.960 of 2008 1. RAVI SHANKAR KUMAR SINGH son of Ratneshwar Singh 2. Ratneshwari Prasad Singh @ Ratneshwari Nandan Singh son of late Ram Lagan Singh 3. Mani Shankar Kumar Singh son of Ratneshwari Nandan Singh 4. Prem Shankar Kumar Singh son of Ratneshwari Nandan Singh 5. Kundan Kumar Singh son of late Arvind Kumar Singh 6. Chandan Kumar S/o late Arvind Kumar Singh 7. Munni Devi W/o late Arvind Kumar Singh all residents of village Madhkaul, PS Belsand, District Sitamarhi Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar Patna 3. Collector, Sitamarhi 4. Additional Collector, Sitamarhi 5. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Sitamarhi ----------- 9 24-06-2009 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the ceiling case against the landholders was earlier concluded in the year 1982 with award of five units and there was no good reason justifying the reopening of the proceedings in the year 1995. On that ground it has been submitted that the landholders should have been allowed to retain five units including one of Pitambari Devi, 2nd wife of Ram Lagan Singh, especially when Pitambari Devi died in the year 1988, that is, much after 9-9-1970. Secondly, he submitted that the Board of Revenue after considering all the relevant facts allowed one additional unit and as a result - 2 - the landholders have become entitled to retain four units but the learned writ court refused to issue directions to the authorities to cancel the notification declaring lands of the family to be surplus and make available further lands on account of grant of one additional unit by the Member, Board of Revenue. On going through the judgement and order of the learned writ court it is found that the issue of reopening of the ceiling case has been correctly decided in the light of earlier challenges made by the appellants to such reopening which failed. Further the issue of one unit for Pitambari Devi has also been correctly decided by holding that determination of surplus land is required to be made with reference to land held by living persons only as held by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt. Savitri Devi & Ors Vrs State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 1977 BBCJ, 455. So far as issue of additional unit allowed by the Member, Board of Revenue is concerned, the writ court has not interfered with the order of Member, Board of Revenue dated 29-01-05 and rightly so because the State never - 3 - challenged that order and raised no grievance against grant of one additional unit to the landholders. The writ court has only expressed difficulty in issuing directions to the revenue authorities to interfere with the notification declaring lands of the landholders as surplus on account of Section 18 of the Land Ceiling Act. We are in agreement with the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the additional unit granted by the Member, Board of Revenue must be respected and the authorities must take all consequential steps to ensure that to the extent possible lands as per choice of the landholders concerned and as per law is made available to the landholders against additional unit allowed by the Member, Board of Revenue. The consequential steps should be taken by the revenue authorities without any delay preferably within four months. With this clarification, this appeal is dismissed. BKS/ (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)