IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6561 of 2007 Saligram Mandal, s/O Late Jagidsh Mandal, R/O Vill-Sadhopur,P.S.Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur ---------- Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary 2. District Collector, Bhagalpur 3. Addl. District Collector, Ceiling, Bhagalpur 4. D.C.L.R. Bhagalpur 5. Circle Officer, Gopalpur, Bhagalpur ----- Respondents. -------- 2. 5.2.2009 Heard Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma for the petitioner, and Mrs. Kumari Amrita, learned Standing Counsel No.1(Ceiling).It arises out of proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It relates to Plot no.291 covering an area of 2.48, appertaining to Khata no.351, situate at Village Jahangirpur, District Bhagalpur. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that this plot of land has been declared to be surplus land of Tek Narain Mandal, his vendor, in a situation where no notice was issued to him. The respondents have placed on record their counter affidavit. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 12.5.1971 from Tek Narain Mandal, the grand- son of Lari Mandal. His further case is that this was recorded in the revenue records in the name of Lari Mandal. In the family partition, 2 it was allotted to Tek Narain Mandal. The plot was also the subject matter of Title Suit No. 40 of 1992 ( Siyaram Mandal and others Vs. State of Bihar and others) which was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 1.4.1997 (Annexure-2), whereby the title of his vendor was declared. The same was never challenged in superior court and attained finality. The petitioner’s vendor was never noticed and, therefore, he did not have the opportunity of submitting his objection, nor did he have opportunity of giving his option under section 9 of the Act. These are essentially issues of facts and it is not possible to decide them, inter alia, for the reason of extremely inadequate and irresponsible counter affidavit. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy in terms of section 45(B) of the Act which, if filed within a period of four weeks, shall be disposed of on merits. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)