IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15614 of 2007 1. Mahendra Singh S/o Ram Deo Singh 2. Chandra Kala Devi w/o Mahendra Singh 3. Panchu Singh son of Late Ram Bilash Singh 4. Ram Sakal Singh son of Late Ram Bilash Singh All resident to village Rampur Dubariya P.S.Sadar Dist. Purnia Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Purnia Respondents Ist set 3. Sudesh Kumar Singh son of Late Rameshwar Singh 4. Most Asiya Devi @ Santi Devi W/o Late Pratap Singh 5. Yashwant Singh S/o Late Harihar Singh 6. Anand Singh S/o Late Narsingh Pd. Singh 7. Jai Singh Patel S/o Late Rama Nand Singh Resident of village Bhitha Bazar P.S. K.Hat Dist. Purnia . Respondents 2nd set ----------- 2 04.03.2009 Heard Mr Uma Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs Kumari Amrita learned Standing counsel no.1 (Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.10.2004 (Annexure 2), passed by respondent no.2, in Misc. Ceiling Case no.137/1993 ( Mahendra Singh & others vs. State of Bihar), whereby the application of the petitioners under section 37 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land ) Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟), has been rejected. Four persons have joined the writ petition with the common prayer to set aside the impugned order on the ground that the cause raised by the petitioners is maintainable in a proceeding under section 37 of the Act because it has been deleted from the statute. According to the writ petition, the petitioners claim to be transferees from the land-holder by a registered deed prior to 9.9.1970. The land owner did not disclose the alienation in his returns - 2 - with the result that the same has been declared surplus. It is further stated that after the petitioners became aware of the final publication dated 2.9.1992, in terms of section 15(1) of the Act, they preferred application under section 37 of the Act which has been rejected by the impugned order. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that section 37 of the Act has been deleted from the statute by Act l8 of 1997, and enforced with effect from 28.6.1993. In his submission, application under section 37 of the Act, as it stood prior to its deletion, was not maintainable. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of this court in Bijendra Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar & ors reported in 1996(1) PLJR 256. Learned Standing counsel opposes the writ petition and submits that section 37 of the Act would have been available in a situation where no specific provision was available to under the Act to agitate the grievance. As to the grievances raised in the present proceedings, there are clear provisions in the Act which the petitioners could have availed of. She also submits that the petitioners have raised the grievance belatedly. She also submits that some of the alienations are second transfers after 9.9.1970. She lastly submits that the deletion had been taken place by virtue of Bihar Ordinance no. 27 of 1995, with effect from 8.9.1995. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 37 of the Act is re-produced herein below for the facility of quick reference: “ Collector to decide dispute for which no specific - 3 - provision is made- If any dispute arises under this Act or the rules made thereunder for which no specific provision has been made in this Act, the dispute shall be decided by the Collector in the prescribed manner and the appropriate provisions of the Act, so far as may be, shall apply thereto: Provided that no such decision shall be made without giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence.” I do not feel that necessity of examining the question as to the date on which the Ordinance, or the consequent Act 8 of 1997, was enforced, because the matter can be disposed of on different grounds. It is evident that the forum under section 37 of the Act could have been invoked only in a situation where there is no specific provision elsewhere in the Act. Learned Standing counsel is right in her submission that the petitioners could have availed of the remedy available to them under section 5(iii), or section 10(3), or section 45(B), of the Act. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to withdraw the writ petition to move the authority prescribed under section 45 (B) of the Act. In that view of the matter, as prayed, the writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn. This order should not be taken to be an expression of the view of this court on the question of maintainability of the proposed application under section 45(B) of the Act, or the delay involved in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. shahid (S.K.Katriar, J)