IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.813 of 2000 1. PRAMOD NARAYAN SINGH, 2. Ashok Kumare Singh, both sons of late Chandrika Singh 3. Chandrakala Devi w/o late Hriday Narayan Singh 4. Manoj Kumar singh 5. Santosh Kumar Singh 6. Chunnu Kumar Singh 7. Sanjay Kumar Singh 8. Bittu Kumar Singh, All sons of late Hriday Narayan Singh 9. Pammi Kumari,d/o late Hriday Narayan Singh, All R/o village- Shambhuchak, Tola-Kuwarpur, P.S.Kalyanpur, District- East Champaran- -Appellants. Versus 1. State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Land Refors, Main Secretariat, Patna, 2. Additional Collector (Land Ceiling), Motihari, District East Champaran, 3. Collector, East Champaran, Motihari, District- East Champaran, 4. Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, District- Muzaffarpur, 5. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna 6. Anchal Adhikari, Kalyanpur Anchal, Kalyanpur, District- East Champaran---- Respondents. ----------- For the appellants : Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocdate with Mr.S.S.Mishra Mr.Mayank Shekhar For the State : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.16, with Mr. Kjmar Pankaj, JC to SC 16. -------- O R D E R 7. 21.10.2008. Writ petitioners-appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 11th December, 1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.10163 of 1989,have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioners-appellants filed writ application, inter alia, praying for quashing a 2 notification dated 21.2.1989, whereby 27.66 acres of land was declared surplus under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. In the writ application, writ petitioners made following grievances: “(A) The petitioner, Pramod Narain Singh, was major as on 9.9.70 therefore, he should have been allowed a separate unit, being separate raiyat land holder, (B) Classification in respect of certain plot(s) were wrongly shown as class III, though they were class IV land, as was shown and accepted in the other ceiling case.” The learned Single Judge found that aforesaid issues were not been properly dealt with by the authority and accordingly, as suggested by the appellants, the case was remitted back to the Additional Collector, Ceiling for determination of the aforesaid issues. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants, attempted to assail the aforesaid order. We are afraid it is not open to the appellants to assail the said order. Said order has been passed by the learned Single Judge, as suggested by the party, and in fact, it was an agreed order, which would be evident from 3 paragraph no.11 of the impugned order, which reads as follows: ”xxx11.-The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the agreed order. However, on the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to cost.” In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this appeal is absolutely misconceived. Needless to state that in case, any adverse order has been passed by the authorities in the light of the order of the learned Single Judge, appellants shall have liberty to assail the same in accordance with law. This appeal, being absolutely misconceived, stands dismissed, but without any order as to cost. ahk (C. K. Prasad) (S.C. Jha)