IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2622 of 2011 1. RAJENDRA YADAV, SON OF LATE MAHABIR YADAV 2. MANJULA DEVI WIFE OF RAJRENDRA YADAV 3. YOGENDRA YADAV SON OF LATE MAHABIR YADAV 4. USHA DEVI WIFE OF YOGENDRA YADAV 5. BINOD THAKUR SON OF LATE BISHUNULAL THAKUR 6. RAM PRASAD THAKUR SON OF LATE BISHNULAL THAKUR 7. RABINDRA THAKUR SON OF LATE BISHUNULA THAKUR 8. AMARKANT THAKUR SON OF LATE BISHNULAL THAKMUR 9. GANEHS LAL THAKUR SON OF LATE MAHESH LAL THAKUR 10. RAMESHWAR THAKUR SON OF LATE MAHESH LAL THAKUR, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MIRZAPUR KOTHI P.S. FORBESGANJ, SIMRAHA, DISTRICT ARARIA …PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, ARARIA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORS, FORBESGANJ, ARARIA 4. MD IRSHAD ALAM SON OF LATE JAHIRUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MIRJAPUR KOTHI P.S. FORBESGANJ, ARARIA RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :Mr. Anil Prasad Singh For the State :Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, S.C.7 ----------- 02. 11.02.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioners claim to be purchasers of certain pieces of lands from Sk. Zahiruddin against whom a land ceiling proceeding being L. C. Case No. 189/73-74 was initiated in which certain lands were declared surplus. An appeal thereagainst was disposed of by order dated 26.11.2008 which has been impugned in the present writ application. The grievance of the petitioners is that the land(s) purchased by them in the year 2000 and 2002 were not allowed to be 2 retained by the landholder. It is submitted that exercising option under section 9(2) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), those lands were not opted by the vendor(Sk. Zahiruddin). Learned counsel for the State points out that the order dated 26.11.2008 has been passed under section 30 of the Act which is the provision relating to appeal. It is thus contended that a revision would lie against the aforesaid order. Learned counsel for the petitioners accepts the aforesaid submission and contends that revision application would be barred by limitation and, as such, this Court may observe that if within a particular time the revision is preferred by petitioners, the same shall be considered on its own merit. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court disposes of the present application by the following order: Let the petitioners file a revision before the appropriate authority within five weeks from today along with required application for condonation. If the said application is filed within the aforesaid time, it is expected that the authority shall consider the same in the light of the fact that petitioners had approached this Court for redressal of their grievances. This Court expects that the said application shall be considered on merit and disposed of in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )