Letters Patent Appeal No.1130 of 2002. ---------- Against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9151 of 2002. ---------- Manohar Prasad Singh, Son of Late Upendra Narayan Singh, resident of Village- Bangolhatta, P.S. Singhia, District- Samastipur...................................................Petitioner/Appellant. -Versus- 1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate-cum- Collector, Samastipur. 2. The Additional Collector, Ceiling, Samastipur..Respondents/ Respondents. ---------- For the Appellant: Shri Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Senior Advocate. For the Respondents: M/S. R. C. Thakur, S.C.IV Ceiling & Kamal Kishore Singh, A.C. to S.C.IV Ceiling. ---------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH Navin Sinha & D.K.Singh,JJ. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the writ proceeding, no counter- affidavit had been filed on behalf of the State. The challenge of the appellant in the writ petition was also that while the Additional Collector by his order dated 13.04.1996 had declared 18.57 acres of land as surplus, the final notification shows 20.56 acres of surplus land. The classification of land was in Class-V. In that context, the petitioner was 2 aggrieved by the failure to provide him the leave to exercise his option with regard to the lands that he wishes to retain. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State in the appeal. There is no specific denial of the assertions of the appellant that lands beyond that declared excess has been notified in the final gazette notification. The statement in paragraph no.3 of the counter-affidavit leaves us dissatisfied and does not answer how the final notification declared lands surplus in excess. In so far as the exercise of option by the appellant is concerned, that may depend on the correctness of the area of acquired lands. Thereafter the question shall arise if the lands acquired have or have not been distributed and possession handed over to the concerned. Only if the lands have not been acquired and possession not handed over can the question of exercise of option by the appellant be considered and not otherwise. The appeal stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms to be complied with by the 3 respondents preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by a reasoned and speaking order. ‘ Patna High Court Dated 21st April, 2010. N.A.F.R./U.K. (Navin Sinha,J) (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)