IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15418 of 2004 1. MAHANTHI RAM S/O SATYA DEO RAM. 2. DUKHI PASWAN S/O KAAILI, PASWAN. 3. UTTAM LAL PASWAN S/O KAILU PASWAN. 4. JAGESHWAR RAM S/O ANUP RAM. 5. MATHAR RAM S/O PANNI LAL RAM. 6. JALESHWAR RAM S/O RASHIK LAL RAM. All are Residents of Village-Manikpur, Police Station-Fulkaha, District- Araria. …………..Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, ARARIA. 3. DEV NARAYAN YADAV S/O NOT KNOWN, R/O VILLAGE- LAXMIPUR, POLICE STATION-NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT-ARARIA. 4. BHAIRO YADAV S/O LATE BUDHU YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- LAXMIPUR, POLICE STATION-NARPATGANJ, DISTRICT-ARARIA. …………….Respondents ----------- 10 28.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. No body has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 3 and 4. 2. Petitioners claim settlement of certain surplus lands with them which were declared surplus in the hands of landholder (Bhairo Yadav) in Land Ceiling Case No. 186/1973-74. On conclusion of the said proceeding, certain lands including the land, in question, appertaining to Khata No. 213, Plot No. 1972, measuring an area of 5.88 acres, situated in Mauza Manikpur, P.S. Narpatganj, in the District of Araria, were declared surplus and subsequently settled 2 with them in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act (Annexure-2 series). 3. Petitioners raise a grievance against the order dated 22.11.2003, passed by the respondent-Additional Collector, Araria in Miscellaneous Case No. 6/95-96, whereby on an application preferred by the original landholder, the lands in question which was/were sold in favour of respondent no. 5 by different sale deeds executed after 9.9.1970 were allowed to be retained by the landholder. It appears from the pleadings on record including the annexures attached thereto that respondent no. 3 filed a miscellaneous case before the authority seeking permission to allow him to exercise his option in terms of Section 9 (2) of the Act. Said prayer was rejected by the respondent- Collector by order dated 24.11.1992 on the ground that lands in question were alienated after 9.9.1970 without taking permission from the ceiling authorities and, as such, those sales were void. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent no. 3 preferred a writ petition before this Court, vide C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 1993 and this Court disposed of the matter directing the writ petitioner to approach the 3 Collector for allowing the landholder to exercise option in terms of Section 9 (2) of the Act. The said order has not been brought on record by the writ petitioner. However, from the impugned order, this Court finds that such a direction was issued upon the respondent-authorities under the Act. In view of the aforesaid direction, made in C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 1993, the miscellaneous case was again taken up for consideration, wherein notices were issued to all the parties concerned. It is admitted position that the petitioners herein also appeared in the said proceeding. By the order impugned dated 22.11.2003, respondent-Additional Collector acting in accordance with the direction of this Court issued in C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 1993, allowed the landholder to retain 9.59 and 1/2 acres of land alienated by the landholder in favour of respondent no. 3 and others in terms of provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, a direction was issued to amend the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act by deleting 9.50 and 1/2 acres of land from the said notification and to incorporate therein equal area of land which was/were earlier allowed to be retained by the landholder within his ceiling units. This Court further finds from the impugned order that after such deletion and 4 inclusion of equal area of the land earlier allowed to be retained by the petitioners, it has been directed therein that the lands now to be declared surplus in terms of amended notification under Section 15 (1) of the Act shall be settled with the petitioners/Parcha holders. 4. State respondent(s) has filed a counter affidavit which is placed on record. From perusal of averments made in paragraph nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10, it appears that the authorities have acted strictly in terms of directions issued on the writ petition preferred by respondent no. 3 being C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 1993. So far as possession of the lands by the petitioners as Parcha holders is/are concerned, a stand has been taken that the said possession of the writ petitioners are also under dispute. However, the respondents have not taken stand contrary to the observations made in the impugned order that once the notification made under Section 15 (1) of the Act is modified by deleting the lands covered by the sale deeds executed by the landholder in favour of the purchasers (respondent-3) equal area of land belonging to the landholder earlier allowed to be retained in his/their unit shall be included in the notification to be issued under Section 15 (1) of the Act and thereafter the petitioners 5 shall be settled with parts of land in terms of the provisions of the Act. 5. Having perused the materials on record including the counter affidavit, this Court is satisfied that the interest of the petitioners being the Parcha holders are not prejudiced, since after making appropriate modification/amendment in the notification under Section 15 (1) of the Act, in the light of the impugned order dated 22.11.2003 (Annexure-1), the writ petitioners shall be settled with fresh pieces of land in terms of the provisions of the Act. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order by invoking its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The application stands disposed of. Safik (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)