IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17087 of 2007 RAMOO PRASAD GUPTA & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02- 17.3.2009 Heard Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma for the petitioners, and Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned Govt. Pleader III. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.6.2003 (Annexure 1), passed by the Minister, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, in terms of Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act, who has refused to reopen the land ceiling proceeding in question at the instance of the present petitioners. The petitioners raise a grievance before this court that their lands totaling 5.01 acres have been included in the surplus area with respect to land ceiling proceedings of others. 2. Learned Government Counsel has supported the impugned order. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The genealogy marked Annexure 2 to the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow :- 1- v;ks/;k iz0 xqIrk 2- pUnznso iz0 xqIrk 1- tuknZu iz0 xqIrk 2- jes'k iz0 xqIrk 3- nhi uk0 iz0 xqIrk 1- ij'kqjke iz0 xqIrk 2- jkekuan iz0 xqIrk 3- 'k=q/u iz0 xqIrk Land ceiling proceedings were started with respect to the lands of Ayodhya Prasad Gupta and concluded long time ago. The petitioners thereafter filed an application under Section 45B of the Act before the - 2 - learned Collector of the district, who was then the prescribed authority to reopen the proceedings because 5.01 acres of their lands had been declared surplus in the land ceiling proceedings of Ayodhya Prasad Gupta. The petitioners’ case is that 2.42 acres of land pertaining to khata no.71, in village Balbhadrapur, and 2.59 acres of land pertaining to khata no.71 of village Mohanpur, belong to the petitioners which were acquired by the common ancestor by registered deed of absolute sale of 1931 and 1936. The same was allotted to the share of the line of the petitioners. The petitioners’ application was rejected by the learned Collector by his order dated 1.4.1986. The petitioners thereafter moved the Board of Revenue which was rejected by order dated 26.12.88 (Annexure 3), passed by the Additional Member in Case no.126/1986 (Ramoo Prasad Gupta & Ors. vs. State of Bihar). In the meanwhile, in view of the amendment in Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act, the appropriate authority was changed from the Collector of the district to the Minister for Revenue and Land Reforms. The petitioners thereafter filed a fresh application under Section 45B of the Act before the Minister which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. It thus appears to me that the petitioner’s cause of action to prefer the writ petition in this Court had arisen after the learned Collector of the district had rejected his application under Section 45B of the Act. There cannot be any justification to repeat an identical application before the Minister in a situation where the petitioners had already exhausted their remedy under the same provision. The petitioners are, therefore, engaging themselves in the luxury of needless litigation and do not seem - 3 - to be content till such time they succeed. Apart from the position that the writ petition suffers from unexplained delay, it also does not seem to be bonafide. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl