IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2265 of 2002 1.Kuldip Prasad Choudhary, son of Late Har Sahay Choudhary 2.Sarju Prasad Choudhary, son of Late Sheo Sahay Choudhary, both residents of Village- Parora, P.S. K. Nagar, District- Purnea ---- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The District Collector, Purnea 3. The Additional Collector (Land Ceilin), Purnea 4. The Sub Divisional Officer(Land Ceiling), Purnea 5.The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Purnea 6.The Anchal Adhikari, K.Nagar, Purnea, District- Purnea 7. Dinesh Prasad Choudhary 8. Subodh Prasad Choudhary 9. Awadh Prasad Choudhary, all respondents 7 to 9 are sons of Late Madan Prasad Choudhary alias Madan Choudhary. 10. Gopal Choudhary, minor son of Late Naresh Choudhary (pre-deceased son of Late Madan Prasad Choudhary) under the guardianship of his Uncle, Dinesh Prasad Choudhary. Nos. 7 to 10 are residents of Village- Parora, P.S. K. Nagar, District- Purnea ------ Respondents. ------------ 5. 17.11.2008 Heard Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma for the petitioners, Kumari Amrita, learned Standing Counsel(Ceiling) for respondent nos. 1 to 6, and Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat for respondent nos. 7 to 10. It arises out of the proceedings under section 22(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), and is directed against the order dated 5.1.2002 (Annexure-8), passed by the learned Additional Collector, in Land Ceiling Misc. Case No. 2 1/1980-81(Madan Choudhary Vrs. Asarfi Rishi & Ors.), whereby the applications of the two petitioners under section 22(1)of the Act has been rejected. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. It relates to lands bearing Kayami Khata No.62, corresponding to Sikmi Khata No. 113, appertaining to R.S. Plot No.1616, total area being 2 Acres 86 decimals, situate at Village-Parora,Police Station- K. Nagar, District- Purnea (hereinafter referred to as the lands in question). The land ceiling proceedings of certain land-holders, Bijendra Narayan Choudhary and others, were initiated under the Act which was registered as Case no. 2343 of 1986/ 1973-74/75-76. The land holders voluntarily surrendered certain lands including the land in question which were declared to be his surplus land. Accordingly the requisite notification in terms of section 15 of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 22.11.1976 (Annexure-2), the land in question was included therein, having been declared surplus. Late Madan Prasad Choudhary, the father of respondent nos.7 to 9, and grand father of respondent no.10, filed an application under section 22(1) of the Act, claiming settlement of the lands in his favour because of being a Sikmidar. His claim was rejected by order dated 20.1.1986, and affirmed by order dated 30.5.1987. Madan Prasad Choudhary preferred C.W.J.C. No. 3400 of 1987(Sri Madan Pd. Choudhary V. The State of Bihar & Ors.), which was allowed by order dated 11.11.1997 (Annexure-4), the said orders 3 dated 20.1.1986 and 30.5.1987, were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the authority concerned to consider the petitioner‟s case as a Sikmidar in terms of section 22(1) of the Act. This was followed by an enquiry conducted by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Purnea, in Case No. 1 of 1980-81. He submitted his report dated 9.6.2001, wherein he has stated that Madan Prasad Choudhary and his heirs are Sikmidar and, therefore, recommended settlement of the land in question in their favour in terms of section 22(1) of the Act. Petitioner no.1( Kuldip Prasad Choudhary herein) at this stage filed an application under section 22(1) of the Act which was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 2001-2002 (Kuldip Choudhary Vrs. State). The learned Sub Divisional Officer submitted his report dated 11.9.2001, action in favour of Kuldip Choudhary. Sarju Prasad Choudhary (petitioner no.2 herein) filed an identical application at this stage which was registered as Land Ceiling case No. 2 of 2001-2002 (Sarjug Prasad Choudhary Vrs. State). The learned Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar Purnea, submitted his report dated 11.9.2001 (Annexure-7/A), recommending action in favour of the petitioner. The matters of the three were considered by the learned Additional Collector, Purnea, who found in favour of Madan Prasad Choudhary and his heirs and up-hold settlement of the land in question in their favour in terms of section 22(1) of the Act. By the same order, the cases of the present petitioners were rejected on the ground that they have not filed application(s) earlier, 4 they were not parties to the said C.W.J.C. No. 3400 of 1987 and accordingly rejected their claims. Hence the present writ petition. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the enquiry reports have found in favour of the petitioners, namely, they are in possession of the lands and have acquired Sikmi rights over a period. In that view of the matter, in his submission, their cases have been wrongly rejected on a hyper-technical ground of not moving the High Court earlier. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 7 to 10 has opposed the writ petition and submits that Madan Prasad Choudhary and his heirs thereafter have been consistently in possession of the entire land in question and are Sikmidar and, therefore, the impugned order has rightly granted settlement of the whole of it in favour of Madan Prasad Choudahry and his heirs in terms of section 22(1) of the Act. He also submits that Rule 25 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Rules, 1963 prescribes a period of three months to prefer application under section 22(1) of the Act. The petitioners filed their application after a laps of 25 years. Learned Standing Counsel has supported the impugned order. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 25 of the Rules reads as follows:- “(1) Application by an under-raiyat under sub-section (1) of Section 22 for being allowed to retain any surplus land in respect of 5 which he is an under-raiyat shall be filed in Form L.C. 19 before the Collector within a period of three months with effect from the date on which the land is declared to be surplus land or within such further period as may be allowed by the Collector.” It is thus manifest that in order to maintain an application under section 22(1) of the Act, the Sikmidar has to file application in form LC-19 within a period of three months with effect from the date on which the land is declared to be surplus land or within such further period as may be allowed by the Collector. It is evident that the notification under section 15 of the Act was published in the Gazette on 22.11.1976 (Annexure-2), whereas the petitioners have filed their application under section 22(1) of the Act in the year 2001. The applications were late by 25 years. In that view of the matter, the learned Additional Collector has rightly held that there was no application in the eye of law which could be disposed of in favour of the petitioners. They were not petitioners in the previous writ petition. The belated applications raised stale claims and can not be entertained. The impugned order can not be faulted. There is no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar , J.)