IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4589 of 2011 1. KAILASH BIHARI SINGH . 2. Prithvi Raj Singh. 3. Kesari Prasad Singh Petitioner No. 1 to 3 are sons of Sri Rajendra Narayan Singh 4. Kanhaiya Narayan Singh S/o Sri Kesari Prasad Singh. 5. Tribhuwan Pratap Singh S/o Sri Kailash Bihari Singh. 6. Gunwant Kumar Singh S/o Prithvi Raj Singh. 7. Yashwant Kumar Singh, S/O Prithvi Raj Singh. 8. Balwant Kumar Singh S/o Kesari Prasad Singh. 9. Karan Singh S/o Kailash Bihari Singh. All resident of village Masudanpur Baisi, Police Station- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Collector, Bhagalpur. 3. The Additional Collector ( Ceiling) Bhagalpur. 4. The Circle Officer, Anchal, Sub- Division Naugachiya, district- Bhagalpur 5. The Circle Officer, Rupauli, District- Purnea. 6. The Circle Officer, Banmankhi, District- Purnea. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr.Chandrasekhar, Sr.Adv. & Mr. Kumar Devashish. For the State :Mrs. Amrita Kumari,S.C.1 5 20.6.2011 The petitioner challenges the orders dated 26.4.2010 passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur on remand by this Court in respect of land ceiling proceeding declaring 180 Acres of land as surplus. Earlier upon the Collector passing a similar order, the same was challenged before this Court in a writ proceeding. The Writ Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Collector to re-decide the issue taking into account the relevant fact and that is how after ten years, the Collector has now passed the order, which is challenged directly before this Court. In view of this Court there are contentious issue of fact involved, which should first finalize by the authority under the 2 Act i.e. alternative remedy available to the petitioner in terms of Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). There are no grounds made for not availing alternative remedy. Accordingly I direct the petitioner to file revision in terms of Section 32 of the Act before the appropriate authority, who shall entertain the same on merit, after condoning the delay and I further direct that he must conclude the proceeding within nine months from the date of revision being filed and deliver final order in accordance with law. Till the aforesaid period of nine months, petitioner will not be disturbed in relation to 180 Acres of land that have been declared surplus. This is subject to full co-operation by the petitioner in all matters. In case petitioner does not co-operate, the statutory authority would be at liberty to proceed ex parte and pass final order. In that view of the matter, this application is disposed of. Singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)