IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11495 of 2011 Ram Murti Prasad Singh, S/o late Parmeshwari Prasad Singh, R/o Village-Barahiya, P.S.- Barahiya District-Lakhisarai… …Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Collector, Lakhisarai, 2. The Collector, Lakhisarai, 3. The Circle Officer, Barahiya, 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lakhisarai…. ....Respondents ………….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ajay, S.C.- XI ……………………. 2 29.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents not to proceed with the distribution of the land of the petitioner on the basis of the acquisition of certain land under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area And Acquisition of Surplus Land ) Act, 1961 of the land-holder of Dashrat Prasad Singh. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid land has been surrendered by the land- holder, however, the petitioner’s land is different therefrom, detail of which has been given in 2 Paragraph- 3 of this writ application. It has been categorically submitted by the petitioner that he is still in possession of the concerned land, however, the petitioner is unnecessarily being harassed on account of threatened of distribution of his lands in favour of certain persons though that land was never acquired under Section 15(1) of the aforesaid Act. A supplementary affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner appending therewith a report of Anchal Amin which, according to the petitioner, is in favour of the aforesaid contention, as it has been found therein that there is a difference between the allotment map and the boundary which has been given in the parcha. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in view of the report which has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, the petitioner may file application before respondent no.2, i.e., the Collector, Lakhisarai so that his grievances could be 3 considered and a decision could be taken by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not have any objection to that. In above view of the matter and in view of the fact that consensus has been reached between the parties, this order is being passed directing the petitioner to move before the respondent no.2, i.e., the Collector, Lakhisarai within three weeks by filing a fresh application along with a certified copy of this order and also a copy of this writ application and supplementary affidavit filed today. If such application is filed then respondent no.2, i.e., the Collector, Lakhisarai would pass an order on its own merit and in accordance with law after considering all the materials available and holding inquiry, if required, and upon hearing the petitioner and all the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months. Let the status quo as existing today with regard to the lands of petitioner be maintained till a final decision is taken by respondent no.2, i.e., 4 the Collector, Lakhisarai. This writ application stands disposed of in the terms as indicated above. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)