CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.11485 OF 1998 --------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ---------- 1. Ram Krishna Ray son of late Ram Nandan Rayt. 2. Ashok Kumar Ray. 3. Kishore Kumar Ray, both sons of Ram Krishna Ray, all residents of village Chanauraganj, Anchal Jhanjharpur, P.S. Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani ----------------------------------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Collector, Madhubani 3. The Additional Collector, Madhubani 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Chhattapur, Anchal, P.S. Chhattapur, District Saharsa Now Supaul 5. Hari Handan Prasad Yadav s/o late Dukha Yadav 6. Agmal Yadav, son of late Sundar Yadav 7. Mauji Lal Yadav son of late Sundar Yadav 8. Sajan Lal Yadav son of late Sundar Yadav 9. Hari Lal Yadav, son of late Janak Yadav 10. Dharamdeo Yadav son of late Janak Yadav 11. Ganga Prasad Yadav 12. Yog Nandan Yadav, son of late Budhu Yadav 13. Kadamkal Yadav son of late Sundar Yadav 14. Smt. Pramila Singh wife of Bamb Bahadur Singh 15. Smt. Shushila Devi wife of Bindeshwari Pd. Singh 16. Gandeo Prasad Singh, son of Sheo Nandan Pd. Singh 17. Fuleshwar Prasad Singh, son of Sheo Nandan Pd. Singh 18. Yogendra Narain Singh, son of Sheonandan Pd. Singh 19. Ladu Prasad Singh son of Sheonandan Pd. Singh 20. Dineshwar Pd. Singh, son of late Fudo Singh 21. Gajendra Narayan Singh son of late Fudo Singh 22. Janardan Prasad Singh, son of late Banbari Singh, All residents of village Sohta @ Girdhar Patti, P.S. and Anchal Chhattapur, District Supaul ----------------------------------(Respondents) For the Petitioners : M/s Surendra Kr. Singh & Ravi Ranjan, Advocates For the State :Mr. R.C. Thakur, S.C.-IV (Ceiling) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N. Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and S.C.-IV (Ceiling) for the State. None appears for the private Respondents, although they have been served notice of these proceedings. 2 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 4.1.1997 passed by the Collector, Madhubani in Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74/ 11 of 1973-74, as contained in Annexure-1 to this application, whereunder learned Collector has reopened the ceiling case at the request of private Respondent nos. 5 to 21 so as to examine the option given by the father of petitioner no.1, Late Ram Nandan Ray under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that while exercising such option, the transfers made in favour of private Respondent nos. 5 to 21 by Late Ram Nandan Ray has been excluded. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that father of the petitioner no.1 had not made any transfer of the lands in favour of private Respondent nos. 5 to 21, rather, it was private Respondent no. 22 who had transferred the lands in favour of private Respondent nos. 5 to 21. It is further submitted that private Respondent no. 22 had no connection with the father of petitioner no.1 who was the landholder and was noticed in the ceiling proceeding which was decided against him and not against private Respondent no.22. Respondent no. 22 is complete stranger to the family of the land-holder. 4. Counsel for the State, with reference to internal page 15 of the impugned order dated 4.1.1997, Annexure-1, submitted that Dineshwar Prasad Singh and Fuleshwar Prasad Singh had produced the sale deed executed by Late Ram Nandan Ray with respect to the land which was the subject matter of the ceiling proceeding initiated against Ram Nandan Ray and those lands ought to have been included in the option exercised by the landholder. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the State, I set aside the impugned order dated 4.1.1997, Annexure-1 and direct the Collector, Madhubani to re-examine the option exercised by the father of the petitioner no.1 under Section 9 of the Act and to include therein the lands which he had 3 transferred either to Dineshwar Prasad Singh, Fuleshwar Prasad Singh or to anyother person. The lands transferred by Janardan Prasad Singh, Respondent no. 22 be excluded from the option exercised by the father of petitioner no.1 and final orders be passed in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order before the Collector, Madhubani. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.N. Sinha, J.) Patna High Court Dated 30th March, 2010 NAFR (Arjun)