IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.666 of 2011 1. RAM DAYAL RAM, SON OF LATE BIGHA RAM 2. CHANDIKA RAM SON OF LATE ADIYA RAM 3. DEVRAJ RAM, SON OF LATE SAHEDO RAM 4. GIRGHIT RAM SON OF LATE UDHADI RAM 5. BIKRAM RAM SON OF LATE GAJADHAR RAM 6. FAUDI RAM SON OF LATE RAJYEE RAM 7. BINDHYACHAL RAM SON OF LATE SAHDEO RAM 8. DHRUP RAM SON OF LATE VIJAYEE RAM 9. MOST. SWARI KUNWAR WIFE OF BANARAS RAM 10. MOLST. SWARSATI KUNWAR, WIFE OF MUNAR RAM 11. BAGAR RAM SON OF KARIMAN RAM 12. MOST. PHULMATI DEVI WIFE OF SUKAYEE RAM 13. MEERA DEVI WIFE OF KEDAR RAM 14. FAUDARI RAM SON OF LATE ANWAT RAM 15. MADAN RAM SON OF LATE MAHANTHI RAM 16. NAGENDRA RAM SON OF LATE MOTI RAM 17. KUNDAN RAM SON OF BINDHYACHAL RAM, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BISHAMHARAPUR POLICE STATION, BHAIROGANJ, POST OFFICE, MAHURA, DISTRCIT WEST CHMPARAN ….PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTICT MAGISTRATE, BETTIAH, WEST CHAMPARAN 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, BAGAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, BAGAHA-1 5. THE SUPERINTENDNET OF POLICE BAGAHA, WEST CHAMPARAN 6. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAGAHA WEST CHAMPARAN 7. THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, BAGAHA WEST CHAMPARAN. 8. OFFICER INCHARGE, BHAIROGANJ BAGAHA WEST CHAMPARAN …RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :Mr. Baxi S.R.P.Sinha, Sr. Adv. :Mr. Binod Kr. Yadav & :Mr. A.K.Chaudhary For the State :Mr. Arun Kumar, AC to GP5 ----------- 02. 19.01.2011 Petitioners are 17 in number. They claim 2 possession over piece of land(s) which stood acquired as surplus in the hands of the landholder, namely, Vishwanath Pd. Sah, resident of Lagunaha in the district of West Champaran. Petitioners rely on Annexure-1 of the writ petition in order to demonstrate that they were settled small piece of land(s) which was/were found surplus in the hands of aforesaid landholder. It is the stand of the petitioners that by reason of Annexure-2 series, small pieces of lands were settled with them by issuing Parcha/Perwana in terms of section 27 of the Land Ceiling Act. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition with following averments: “8. That the Officer-Incharge Respondent no.5 appeared with force etc. in the middle of the last November asked them to vacate the land and he was not ready to listen the petitioners on great persuasion etc. they disclosed that they have been asked to get their land vacated by the District Officials. On the request of the petitioners they refused to show any paper etc. carrying any such authority by anybody. 9. That on the intervention of the local people they went away threatening the petitioners to vacate the land at once or else they will get same vacated by force. 10. That the petitioners approached the District Magistrate and filed their representation to him against the aforesaid action of the respondents. 3 11. That the police party along with some civil officials again approached them on 3rd of December 2010 and asked them to vacate the land as the same has been taken back from them. 12. That in this connection it may be stated that the petitioners were not aware of any proceeding taking back the land from them. No action etc. has even been served upon them in this regard nor any opportunity of hearing was given to them against the impugned action. Although, a statement has been made that they have approached the concerned District Magistrate ventilating their grievance by filing representation, but no such representation has been annexed to the present writ petition. Considering the averments made in the writ petition and after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State, this Court is of the view that present writ petition should be disposed of by the following order: Let the petitioners approach the respondent- District Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran by filing appropriate representation, supported by relevant documents within five weeks from today along with a copy of this order. If such a representation is filed within the aforesaid time, the respondent-District Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time and/or will 4 take appropriate action as required in law. Considering the assertions made in the writ petition, this Court is further persuaded to direct that till filing of the representation before the said respondent, petitioners shall not be forcefully evicted/ejected from the lands so settled with them. Petitioners shall thereafter be at liberty to pray for interim order, if any, before the said respondent. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )