IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13970 of 2010 1. Paras Nath Singh, son of Late Sampat Singh, 2. Shivji Singh, 3. Sri Ram Singh, both sons of Late Hira Singh, 4. Bikrama Singh, 5. Ramanand Singh, son of Late Ram Ekbal Singh, 6. Jawahar Lal Singh, 7. Kalyan Singh, 8. Awadh Bihari Singh, all sons of Late Sampat Singh, all of village Barahia Tola, PS Maharajganj, District Siwan – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Dy. Secretary, Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Bihar, 3) The Collector, Siwan. 4) The Anchal Adhikari, Maharajganj, Siwan. 5) Abhyanand Giri, Mahanth, Chela Bhikhabandh Math, village Bhikhabandh, PS Daraunda, Dist. Siwan. 6) Parma Ram, son of Ratan Ram, 7) Tara Ram, son of Parma Ram, 8) Singhasan Ram, son of Jhapsi Ram, 9) Ram Pravesh Ram, 10) Amawas Ram, both sons of Jatan Ram, 11) Wakil Ram, son of Late Ramjas Ram, 12) Ram Ayodhya Ram, 13) Matichand Ram, both son of Surat Ram, 14) Rajendra Ram, 15) Harendra Ram, 16) Fagu Ram, all sons of Dip Ram, 17) Prem Kumar Ram, 18) Sonu Ram, both sons of Late Ishwar Ram, 19) Ram Chandra Ram, son of Thakur Ram, 20) Rajeshwar Ram, son of Rajbanshi Ram, 21) Moti Lal Ram, son of Raj Mahal Ram, 22) Jag Lal Ram, son of Late Raj Mahal Ram, 23) Gulab Chandra Ram, son of Pitambar Ram, 24) Ashok Ram, son of Chandrama Ram, 25) Ram Naresh Ram, son of Mathura Ram, 26) Mohan Ram, son of Banarsi Ram, 27) Uma Ram, son of Ram Naresh Ram, all of village Barahia Tola, PO Charkari Rasulpur, PS Maharajganj, Dist. Siwan – Respondents. 3 30.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners who claim that they are the Bataidars of the ex- 2 landlord. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1945 their fathers were the Bataidars of the ex-landlord. The Jamabandi shows that the father of the petitioners were the Bataidars. It is also submitted, that the returns filed on behalf of the ex-landlord at the time of vesting of the Zamindari also indicates that the petitioners’ fathers were the Bataidars. In the year 1976 a ceiling proceeding was instituted against the ex-landlord which stood concluded and the lands in question were declared to be surplus lands of the land holder. Thereafter the process of distribution of surplus lands also began. At that time the petitioners came to this court in CWJC No. 9965/2000 which was disposed of by order, dated 28.9.2000. The submission of the petitioners before this court was that they were the Bataidars and are entitled to protection under section 22 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. This court did not accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and allowed them to withdraw the writ petition to file an application under sections 22/45B of the Act. Obviously the petitioners could not have filed an application under section 22 of the Act, considering the fact that it was time barred. Therefore, the petitioners filed an application under section 45B of the Act. The impugned order in this case at Annexure 6 is the order of the Minister rejecting the application under section 45B of the act. The Minister has given two reasons for rejecting the 3 application. Firstly, it is said that the petitioners did not take steps within the prescribed time under section 22 of the Act and as such after a delay of twenty five years, it was not possible to entertain the plea raised by the petitioners. The order also indicates that the petitioners had not taken any steps under section 48D although they claim to be under-raiyats since 1945. Considering these aspects the Minister rejected the application under section 45B of the Act. I do not find any illegality in the order impugned, so as to warrant interference by this court. This writ petition is dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)