IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10298 of 1992 1. JIKSHA DEVI W/O- LATE KANHAI THAKUR 2. RAJENDRA THAKUR SON OF LATE KANHAI THAKUR BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAHUARA, P.S.- DEO, DISTRICT- AURANGABAD …… Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD DISTRICT, AURANGABAD 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD DISTRICT, AURANGABAD. 4. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, DEO, DIST- AURANGABAD. 5. RAM NARAIN MAHATO SON OF LATE SITA RAM MAHATO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- DAK BANGLOW ROAD., P.S.- KOTWALI, IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. ……. Respondents ----------- 4 22.01.2010 None appears on behalf of the petitioner. We have heard Mr. Shashidhar Jha, learned Assistant Counsel to learned Government Advocate no. 1. Land Ceiling proceedings for determination of surplus lands were initiated against the Bihar Agricultural and Social Unit Pvt. Limited, which was registered as Land Ceiling case no. 90 of 1973-74. The petitioners are purchasers from the landholder, the said company. After following the prescribed procedure under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act 1961, the requisite notification in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act was issued on 16.8.1986 (Annexure-4), declaring the surplus land. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached the learned Collector of the district of Aurangabad by preferring Land Ceiling Appeal no. 5/1992-93, which was rejected by order dated 22.7.1992 (Annexure-3), and is reproduced here for the facility of quick reference: 2 “Heard the learned Advocate of the appellant. The land ceiling proceeding has been acquired as far back as on 16.8.1986 under Section 15(1) of the Ceiling Act with the commencement of the notification, land in question rests in the State. All right extinguishes Consequently the appeal petition is rejected.” 2. The petitioner has thereafter rushed to the court without exhausting the statutory remedy, and it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers from the landholder, and their interest may be protected. 3. We have perused the materials on record, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the petitioners are purchasers from the landholders, the said company. It further appears to us that the land ceiling proceedings reached the final stage, and the surplus lands had been duly notified as per the prescribed procedure. We, therefore, entirely agree with the order of the learned Collector that the matter has finally concluded and it is, therefore, not possible for this court to interfere at this belated stage. The time which has elapsed since 1986 further goes against the petitioner. This court in exercise of its prerogative jurisdiction would not like to unsettle the settled affairs in the manner suggested by the petitioner. 4. There is no merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )