IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12823 of 2004 1. SHAIL BALA DEVI,wife of Dilip Kumar Singh. 2. Rajesh Kumar Singh,son of Dilip Kumar Singh. 3. Rakesh Kumar Singh,son of Dilip Kumar Singh,all above resident of village-Pahala Garh, P.S-Kadwa, Distt- Katihar…………petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Collector,Katihar. 3. Additional Collector,Ceiling Katihar. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi, Distt- Katihar. 5. Circle Officer, Kadwa, Distt-Katihar …………Respondents Ist Set. 6. Mahavir Prasad Agrawal, son of Sri Hanuman Das Agrawal, R/O Manjushree, Gaushala Road, Begusarai………………Respondent 2nd Set. 7. Prem Narayan Singh, S/O Late Chandrakala Singh, R/O Vill-Bhagaon,P.S-Kadwa, Distt- Katihar. 8. Banwari Lal Agrawal, S/O Late Sheo Karan Das. 9. Arun Kumar Agrawal, S/O Banwari Lal Agrawal. 10. Ajay Kumar Agrawal, S/O Sheo Kumar Agrawal. 11. Bijay Kumar Agrawal, S/O late Sheo Kumar Agrawal. All above the resident of Vill- Sonaili Bazar, P.S-Kadwa, Distt- Katihar…………Respondents 3rd Set. with CWJC No.11066 of 2004 1. SATYA NARAIN SINGH 2 2. Prem Narain Singh, Both sons of Late Chandra Kala Singh, 3. Hira Lal Rai 4. Jawahar Lal Rai, Both sons of Late Ram Lakhan Rai. 5. Brij Nandan Tiwary, son of Late Ramesh Tiwary, 6. Budhi Nath Jha,S/O Late Bhakti Jha 7. Ayodhya Prasad Singh, son of Late Indradeo Singh 8. Ram Ekbal Thakur, S/O Late Gobind Thakur, All residents of Village, Bhagaon, P.S-Kodarma, District, Katihar (Bihar) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector,Katihar. 3. Additional Collector, Katihar. 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi, Distt- Katihar. 5. Circle Officer, Kadwa,P.S-Kadwa, Distt- Katihar………Respondents. ---------- For petitioners:-Sri K.N.Chaubey, Sr.Adv Sri Bhola Prasad, Adv. For State:- S.C (Ceiling) ---------- 11/ 10-Dec-08 Heard the parties. Petitioners of the first case claim to be purchasers or purchasers from purchasers of the original land holder, Mr.Mahavir Prasad Agrawala and others. Their purchase is claimed to be 3 after ceiling proceeding abated in 1952 by virtue of amended statutory provisions. The petitioners in the second writ petition have claimed to be purchasers from Mr.Mahavir Prasad Agrawala and his co-sharers in the year 1978. They claim that they got their names muted in 1980 or later but the authorities did not make efforts to locate purchasers like them and did not protect their interest in the proceeding concluded against said Mr. Agrawala as per amended provisions of the Ceiling Act particularly Section 32 B of the Ceiling Act( hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). A number of irregularity and illegality in the ceiling proceeding against Mr.Agrawal and his family was sought to be raised by the petitioners. This Court is not impressed by those submissions because 4 that proceeding was not against the petitioners who admittedly claim to be purchasers and therefore either the purchases can be declared as null and void being contrary to the provisions of the Ceiling Act or if their purchases are found to be bona fide then their lands may be included in the lands opted by the landlord or forced to be opted by the landlord as per statutory provisions. The petitioners have obviously approached this Court without canvassing their cases before the ceiling authorities. This Court would not like to make any finding of fact in respect of the claims of the petitioners. First of all, they must seek their remedy within the frame work of the Ceiling Act before the concerned authorities by praying for reopening of the proceeding under provision of the Act. Thereafter, they may get the right 5 to get their purchases scrutinized by the ceiling authorities so that if their purchases are found to be lawful then their interest may be protected within the provisions of the Ceiling Act by including the lands transferred in favour of the petitioners within the permissible limit of land to which the original landlord may be found entitled. If the petitioners file the application before the concerned authorities for reopening of the ceiling proceeding in question i.e Land Ceiling Case No. 121 of 1973-74 which was originally before DCLR, Katihar and thereafter before Additional Collector, Ceiling, Katihar, the concerned authorities shall dispose of petitioners’ such applications in accordance with law. Since their writ petitions have remained pending in this 6 Court for four years, such applications should be considered expeditiously and disposed of by the competent authority at the earliest preferably within four months from the date presentation of such applications. It will be open for the petitioners to seek interim relief from the concerned authorities. Both the writ petitions are disposed of. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)