IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.432 of 2008 PRADIP KUMAR DAS & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8. 25.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and perused the order of the Writ Court under appeal dated 18.1.2008 whereby the writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 13718 of 2004 was disposed of with observation and direction that the appellant should avail of the statutory remedy available under Section 45(B) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It was further directed by the Writ Court that if an application for reopening of the Ceiling proceedings relating to land holder Prem Kishori Devi is filed within a period of three months before the State Government, latter would take a decision for reopening the Ceiling Case No.02 of 1984-85 relating to Katihar District and will direct for an enquiry under Section 5 (1)(iii) of the Act, if the records discloses to the State Government that no such enquiry relating to sale deed of the appellant had been earlier conducted by the Collector. The Writ Court further took notice of interim order passed in the writ case on 9.11.2004 and directed for maintaining the possession of the appellants in respect of the land in question, if they have not been dispossessed, till the disposal of the application under Section 45(B) of the Act. The learned counsel for the appellant has insisted that the - 2 - Writ Court or this Appeal Court should follow the course opted by a Single Judge of this Court in earlier case decided on 9.8.2005. A copy of that order in C.W.J.C. No. 13422 of 2004 has been appended as Annexure- 1 to the memo of this appeal. We find that in that case also the authorities had been given opportunity to proceed in the matter under Section 5 of the Act after giving notice to that petitioner and apparently the learned counsel for the State had not pointed out the statutory remedy available to the petitioner under Section 45(B) of the Act. In the present case, as appears from the judgment under appeal, the learned counsel for the State has pointed out that an efficacious alternative remedy is available under Section 45(B) of the Act In the facts of the case, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the Writ Court. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily but with a modification that if the appellant has not filed any application under Section 45 (B) of the Act so far on account of pendency of this appeal then he will be at liberty to file such an application within one month from today and in that event also all the observations and directions made by the Writ Court will inure to the benefit of the appellant. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.) Ravi/-