IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14886 of 2008 SATRUDHAN PRASAD SAH s/o late Kanhaiya Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Wad no.8, Main Road, Motihari, P.O. & P.S. Motihari, District- East Champaran. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Land Acquisition, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Collector, East Champaran, Motihari. 5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, East Champaran at Motihari. 6. The Chairman, Agricultural Marketing Board, East Champaran, Motihari. 7. The Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Board, Motihari, District- East Champaran. 8. The Sub-divisional Officer, Motihari Sadar, District- East Champaran. 4 14.5.2010 Petitioner had .55 acres of land near the town of Motihari in East Champaran. Several decades back it was sought to be acquired along with other track of land for establishment of the Principal Market Yard for the Motihari Agriculture Produce Market Committee under the provisions of Bihar Agriculture Act, 1960. Petitioner’s land was on the boundary on one side. Petitioner represented in the department of Agriculture for release of the land from acquisition. Upon such a representation being filed, it appears that the Agriculture Department wrote to the Marketing Board-Annexure-4 , the Government decision to release the land from acquisition . Petitioner continued in possession. In 2006, before the land could either de-notify or re-convey to the petitioner, the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960, was repealed and the 2 property have now vested in the State of Bihar under the control of Department of Agriculture. Recently, petitioner came to know that the State Government intends to give those lands to Warehousing Corporation for construction of godown.. Petitioner has come to this Court for a direction to the State to give up their decision and re-convey the land to the petitioner. Mr. B.K.Singh Chauhan appeared for the Administrator of the erstwhile Marketing Board. State is represented . Mr. Chauhan submits that the decision to re- conveyance of land to the petitioner might have been of the Government in the department of Agriculture. That would not bind the Marketing Board as the acquisition of land was for the Board out of money beared by the Board and the Board had taken no decision to surrender those lands for re-conveyance. The decision of the State Government would not bind the Board. I need not dwell upon this question as that has become academic. The reason being that the Board has in abolished the Act under which the Board was created has been repealed by virtue of the provisions of the Repealing Act. The properties are now the properties of the State Government and are now under the control and charge of Department of Agriculture, Govt. of Bihar, which is the department, which had decided to re-conveyance the land to the petitioner . In view of the aforesaid facts, I direct the petitioner to file a detailed representation to the State Government in the 3 department of Agriculture within two weeks from today bringing to their notice the facts and circumstances aforesaid and any other relevant facts with a request for re-conveyance of the land consistent with the decision taken earlier. Upon such a representation being filed , the authority would consider the same and pass order as appropriate in the facts and circumstances in accordance with law within a period of three months thereafter positively. In the meantime, parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the land, in question. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)