CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 9764 OF 1999 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). MAHANTH SUBHADRA DAS, CHELA OF LATE MAHANTH RAMJI DAS, MUTWALI, RAM JANKI MATH, VIJAYPUR, P.S.- VIJAYPUR, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ :---- PETITIONER. -VERSUS- 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, GOPALGANJ. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, HATHUA, GOPALGANJ. 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BIJAIPUR, GOPALGANJ. :-- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For The Petitioner : M/S Prabhu Nath Roy & Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocates. For The State : Mr. Ajay, S.C.-3 (Ceiling). ====== P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay, S.C.-3 (Ceiling) for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.1998 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj in Ceiling Case No. 5/97, Annexure-3, whereunder the request of her husband Mahanth Ramji Das to exercise option in terms of Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been refused on the ground that the option has been exercised belatedly. - 2 - Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 1.7.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 2 of 1999, Annexure-4, whereunder the order dated 22.12.1998 passed by the Collector, Gopalganj (Annexure-3) refusing the request of the petitioner for exercising option has been affirmed. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the ceiling proceeding concluded on 9.9.1997, whereafter request for exercising option in terms of Section 9 of the Act was made under petition dated 7.10.1997 but the same was rejected stating that it is being made at a belated stage. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that until classification of the lands held by the landholder is not finally settled by the authorities it is not possible for the landholder to exercise his right of option under Section 9 of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of Hira Lal Sah & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 1977 BBCJ 717 and Lallan Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1992(2) PLJR 631, paragraphs 2 and 3. 4. I have examined Section 9 of the Act which provides for exercising option at the time of filing of the objection under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act, but at the time of filing of the objection the land-holder is disputing classification of lands held by him and until - 3 - the question of classification of the lands is settled, finally the landholder cannot be asked to exercise his option as he is not sure about the area which is to come within his unit. In the circumstances, I direct the Collector, Gopalganj to allow the petitioner liberty to exercise option of choosing land which she wants to retain within the ceiling limit already allowed to her husband. Let the petitioner file petition exercising option choosing the lands which she wants to retain within the ceiling limit admissible to her along with a copy of this order before the Collector, Gapalganj who should consider the same and pass final order and modify the Gazette notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act by publishing corrigendum in the light of the option exercised by the petitioner, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of filing of the petition which should be filed within one month along with a certified copy of this order. 5. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. The Patna High Court. The 27th April, 2010 P.K.P./N.A.F.R. (V.N.Sinha,J.)