IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4009 of 2001 JAIRAM DAS @ JAIRAM DUBEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.5318 of 2001 RAMDEO THAKUR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.5798 of 2001 MOSTT.KALAWATI DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS with CWJC No.5775 of 2001 SMT.NEELAM DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners :Mr. Yogendra Mishra, Advocate For the State :Mr. Ajay, S.C. 3(Ceiling) 08/ 05.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned S.C. 3(Ceiling) for the State. 2. Petitioner, Jai Ram Das @ Jai Ram Dubey is the purchaser from Kamal Nayan Das under registered sale deed dated 8.6.1965. Petitioner, Ramdeo Thakur is also purchaser from Ganga Prasad under registered sale deed dated 22.4.1961, from Laxman Dubey under registered sale deed 11.7.1961 and from Yogeshwar Pandey under registered sale deed dated 14.11.1965. Petitioner Most. Kalawati Devi is purchaser from Ramdeo Thakur under registered sale deed dated 16.1.1974 and petitioner Neelam Devi is donee from Sheo Narain Dubey under registered deed of gift dated 24.11.1987. 2 3. They have filed the aforesaid writ applications asserting that the lands, which were conveyed to them under the aforesaid sale deeds have been notified for acquisition in terms of the provisions contained in the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) under Gazette notification issued by the Collector, Sitamarhi in connection with the Land Ceiling Case No. 2 of 1992 and bears Memo No. 260 dated 20.2.2001, Annexure-4. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that before publishing the aforesaid Gazette notification dated 20.2.2001, the authorities under the Act never issued any notice to the petitioners nor the aforesaid deeds executed in favour of the petitioners have ever been annulled in any proceeding initiated either against the petitioners or their vendors or in connection with Ceiling Case No. 2 of 1992. As the sale deeds/ gift deed in terms whereof the petitioners are holding the lands in question, which have not been annulled so far, the subject matter of those deeds could not have been included in the Gazette notification without annulling the transfer. 5. The authorities have filed counter affidavit in the four writ applications, but have not controverted the aforesaid submissions. 6. In the circumstances, having heard counsel for the 3 parties, I direct the petitioners to appear before the Collector of the District on 15.10.2008 and file his objection that without annulling the transfer deeds on the basis of which they have come in possession of the lands in question, the same cannot be acquired for distribution in terms of the provisions of the Act. 7. Let the Collector of the District consider the objection of the petitioners in accordance with law and if the Collector after hearing the transferor and the transferee, is satisfied that the transfer deeds aforesaid were not sham then he shall allot the lands in question to the share of the vendors and if the vendors had no surplus lands then close the proceeding by modifying the Gazette notification dated 20.2.2001, Annexure-4. 8. Until the appearance of the petitioners before the Collector of the District, status quo as existing on 28.3.2001 shall be maintained and thereafter to continue the status quo order, petitioners should request the Collector of the District. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)