IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.129 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 14679/2006) 1. Sk.Nazmul Haque 2. Sk. Azimmuddin Both sons of Danaullah, resident of village- Mahthour, Tola- Ghogha Kasba, P.S. Kasba, District- Purnia. …….Petitioners- Appellants. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Purnia Division, Purnia. 3. The Collector, Purnia. 4. The Anchaladhikari, Kasba, P.S. Kaba, District- Purnia. 5. Mossamat Hansmukhi Devi, wife of late Fakirchand Sah, resident of Village- Madarghat, Kasba, District- Purnia. …………Respondents- Respondents. …………… For the Appellants: Mr. Jagdish Prasad Bhagat, Advocate. For the State: Smt. Kumari Amrita, SC © 1. ………………. 4 30.11.2011 This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.12.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No.14679 of 2006, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners- appellants herein by setting aside part of the observation made in the order dated 8.10.2004 by the Collector, Purnea directing the land holders to alienate the equivalent area of lands in favour of the petitioners- appellants herein. The matter relates to declaration of land of the petitioners- appellants herein as surplus as the appellants claim to have purchased the said land from the land holder vide sale deed dated 6.5.1971 after the cut off date, i.e. 9.9.1970. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Collector, Purnea without relying upon the report of the Anchaladhikari has decided the matter and 2 declared the land as surplus. It has further been argued that after purchase of the land in question the appellants are still in possession and therefore the matter has to be decided under the provisions of section 5 (1) (iii) of the Ceiling Act by which notice has also to be issued to the purchasers- appellants herein. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that as it is Government land there is no need to direct the land- holders to alienate the equivalent area of lands in favour of the petitioners- appellants herein. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the petitioners by these malafide proceedings are trying to pressurize the land holders to part with equivalent area of land. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that they are in possession of the land in question purchased by them prior to cut off date, i.e. 9.9.1970 is vehemently opposed by the learned Government Advocate stating that there is no need to remand the matter back to the Collector to decide the matter afresh as from the facts of the case of the appellants it is clear that there is no need to issue notice under section 5 (1) (iii) of the Ceiling Act. But, however, as there are disputed question of facts with regard to purchase and possession of the land by the appellants herein and no material is available before this Court to determine that it is government land and further there is no material to presume that there was any mala-fide intention on 3 the part of the appellants to take away the land in question, we deem it fit and proper to remand the matter back to the Collector, Purnia i.e. Respondent No.3 to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the report filed by the Anchaladhikari in accordance with law after issuing notice to the appellants herein as also the aggrieved parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the above observation this appeal stands disposed of. Abhay Kumar ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)