IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18776 of 2011 Dhaneshwar Jha S/O late Surkhi Lal Jha @ Bulo Jha R/O Village- Rangra, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur… …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur 3. The Additional Collector, Bhagalpur 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nougachhia, District- Bhagalpur 5. Usha Devi W/O Sri Vijay Kumar Thakur R/O Village- Ajampur Rangra,PO.S.- Gopalpur, District-Bhagalpur… …Respondents ………….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Fakhrudding Ali Ahmad, A.C. to S.C. III ………………….. 2 11.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 13.09.2011 passed in Revision (Ceiling) Case No.2/2011-12 as contained in Annexure-4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a petition filed by him under Section 16(3) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter refereed to be as “the Act”) bearing Case No.2/86-87 was allowed on 24.02.1987. Thereafter, an appeal 2 was preferred by respondent no.5 bearing Misc. Appeal Case No.90/86-87 which was not pursued and was dismissed for non-prosecution on 23.09.1992 and thereafter the sale deed dated 16.02.1994 had been executed by the authority under the provisions of Section 16(3) of the Act. However, it is contended that a revision has been filed after about 19 years and that too without any petition for condoning the delay in preferring the same. Notice has been issued in the aforesaid proceeding that is under challenge. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner could have raised all the grounds before the revisional authority itself including the ground of delay of about 19 years and admission of the case even without condoning the delay of about 19 years. Learned counsel submits that this application is pre- mature inasmuch as the revisional authority could have also decided all the issues which have been raised in this case. In above view of the matter, this writ application is disposed of with a liberty granted to the 3 petitioner, since he has already appeared in the concerned revision, to raise all the grounds including the ground of revision being barred by the law of limitation and the revisional authority would be obliged to consider all the grounds raised by the him. Since the appellate order was passed in the year 1992 itself and thereafter sale deed had also been executed by the authorities in favour of the petitioner, as per his claim, it is expected that the revisional authority would make every effort to dispose of the revision expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. It is made clear that opportunity of hearing should be given to all the concerned parties in the concerned revision. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)