IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1006 of 2003 1. RAM SWARATH YADAV, S/o Late Kailash Pati Yadav, 2. Dleep Yadav, S/o Late Thaka Yadav, 3. Vishundeo Yadav, S/o Late Bilat Yadav, 4. Ram Chandar Yadav, S/o Sukhdeo Yadav, 5. Pramaod Yadav, S/o Late Jugoo Yadav, 6. Jahar Yadav, S/o Late Bauni Yadav, all residents of Village Belsandi Tab – Larjha, P.S. Bithan Via Bithan Distt. Samastipur, 7. Manje Lal Yadav, S/o Late Mishri Yadav, R/o Village Savaipura, P.S. Hasanpur, Distt. Samastipur ……………………………. Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Collector, Samastipur, 2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Samastipur, 3. Shri Chatradhari Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh, 4. Sri Upendar Singh, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Singh, Respdts. 3 & 4 are residents of Village Sakhwa, P.S. Hasanpur, Distt. Hasanpur, 5. Circle Officer, Hasanpur Block, Hasanpur, Distt. Samastipur and 6. Circle Officer, Bithan Block, Hasanpur, Distt. Samastipur …………………………………………………….... Respondents. ----------- 11. 16.07.2009. Heard Mr. Choudhary Shyam Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ram Chandra Thakur, learned S.C. IV © appearing on behalf of the State. After some argument learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there has already been a publication under Section 15(1)(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (for short `the Act’) which is appended as Annexure-9 to this application. In view of that learned counsel seeks permission of this Court to 2 withdraw this application with liberty to file a petition before the competent ceiling authority for reopening of the case under Section 45(B) of the Act as his objection could not be considered at the time of passing of the order under Section 10(3) of the Act. Permission is accorded. This application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioners to file such a petition within two months from today. Upon filing of such a petition within the time granted, the ceiling authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law by a speaking order after considering the objections raised by the petitioners as also the documents or evidence brought on record in its support. This Court vide order dated 24.1.2003 had granted interim relief to the petitioners to the effect that till further order, petitioners should not be forcibly dispossessed from their respective lands in dispute, as described in para 4 of the writ application. In that view of the matter it is further directed that if the petitioners file the aforesaid petition within the time granted, as mentioned above, the ceiling 3 authority shall not dispossess the petitioners from the lands, as described in para 4 of this writ application, till final disposal of such petition. dk ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. )