IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2399 of 2007 1. Sachidanand Ravidas Son of late Ugal Ravidas Resident of Village Chandher, Tola Bhagwa. 2. Ramesh Rai Son of Satish Rai resident of Village- Khari, 3. Faring Rai, S/O Madhu Rai, R/O Vilalge Khari, All belongs to P.S. Balia Belone, Disst. Katihar --- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary/Commissioner, Department of Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Collector, District-Katihar 3. The Additional Collector, Land Reforms(Land Ceiling), District-Katihar 4. Sub-Divisional Officer Barsoi, District- Katihar 5. Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Barsoi Sub Division, District- Katihar 6. Circle Officer, Kadwa Anchal, District- Katihar 7. Askarul Haque Son of late Anwarul Haque 8. Jhanan, S/O late Anwarul Haque 9. Abdul Subhan, S/O Late Mainuddin 10.Abdul Sakur Son of late Mainuddin, respondent no.7 to 10 are Resident of Village-Bhaisbandha, P.S. Kadwa(Balia Belone) District-Katihar --- Respondents. -------- 2. 15.1.2009 Heard Mr. Helal Ahmad for the petitioners, Mr.Ram Chandra Thakur, learned Standing Counsel No.4(Ceiling) for respondent nos. 1 to 6, and Mr. Najmul Hoda for respondent nos. 8 to 10. We do not feel the necessity of issuing notice to respondent no.7 in view of the nature of the order we are going to pass. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.1.2007 (Annexure-1 series), passed by the learned Anchal Adhikari, Kadwa, district Katihar, in Case No. 10 of 1991-92 (State of Bihar Vrs. Anwarul Haque), whereby the lands in question settled in favour of 2 the petitioners have been recalled. The official respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit and have opposed the writ petition. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 8 to 10 are the land holders and oppose this writ petition. We have perused the material on record and considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the lands mentioned in Annexure-1 series were settled in favour of the petitioners under the impression that the same were surplus land of respondent nos. 7 to 10. The respondents authorities realized that the lands in question were erroneously notified to be surplus land of respondent nos. 7 to 10 and, therefore, de-notified the same by appropriate notification under the relevant provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act). Consequently the respondents authorities issued impugned orders informing the petitioners that in view of the position that lands are not surplus lands, have accordingly been de-notified, and settlement in favour of the petitioners are cancelled. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned orders have been passed for valid reasons and can not be faulted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)