IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8888 of 2002 1. ARVIND KUMAR SINGH 2. RANJIT KUMAR SINGH. 3. NITYA NAND SINGH, ALL SONS OF SRI JANARDAN SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – SAMASTIPUR, P.S. – SAHEBPUR, KAMAL, SUB BALLIA, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. …………….. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, BALLIA, BEGUSARAI. ……….. RESPONDENT IST SET. 5. GAURI SHANKAR CHAURASIYA. 6. UMA SHANKAR CHAURASIYA 7. BHAWANI SHANKAR CHAURASIYA, ALL SONS OF LATE DASO SAW @ DASRATH SAHU, RESIDENT OF SAMASTIPUR, P.S. – SAHEBPUR, KAMAL, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI, VENDOR …… RESPONDENT ……..2ND SET. 8. BHAGWAT PRASAD. 9. BISHUNDEO SAH. 10. SHANKAR SAH. 11. BINOD KUMAR, ALL SONS OF LATE KESHO SAH, RESIDENT OF SAMASTIPUR, P.S. – SAHEBPUR, KAMAL, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI. ………. VENDEE ……. RESPONDENT 3RD SET. ----------- 5 30.06.2009 Heard. Mr. Prabhunath Roy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners. State is represented by Mr. K. Thakur, A. C. to S. C. IV (Ceiling). The petitioners are aggrieved by an order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in the Ceiling Revision (Pre-emption) Case No. 235 of 2001 whereby the Additional Member, Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision on the ground of its being time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is true - 2 - that the aforesaid revision case was filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, however, a petition for condoning the delay was filed by the petitioners which was not considered by the revisional authority. In support of his submission he has annexed the aforesaid application vide Annexure – 4. On earlier occasion, notices were issued upon respondent nos. 5 to 11 and despite service of notice none of them have appeared on behalf of the aforesaid respondents till today. As held in the case of Mohammad Gayasuddin & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1991 (1) BLJ 290 as well as a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kula Nand Jha & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1998(2) PLJR 693, it is now well settled that the provision of Limitation Act would apply to proceedings under the Ceiling Act and the Member, Board of Revenue is vested with power to condone the delay in filing of the revision in appropriate cases. Upon a plain reading of the Annexure – 4, the circumstances enumerated therein show the bona fide mistake in pursuing the remedy of the revision within the prescribed time, sufficient grounds have been made out to condone the delay in filing the revision application. In the result, this application is allowed and the order dated 05.07.2002 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue is set aside, delay in filing of revision is condoned. The matter is - 3 - remitted back to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue to re- consider the revision application afresh on merit after issuing notice upon all the parties. However, it is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the cases of the respective parties. Kundan (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)