IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19936 of 2011 1. Bhuthai Yadav Son Of Late Jahuri Yadav Resident Of Village Bhawanipur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District Purnea 2. Deep Narayan Yadav Son Of Bhuthai Yadav Resident Of Village Bhawanipur, P.S. Bhawanipur, District Purnea… ….petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Presiding Officer, Cum Hon'ble Minister, Revenue And Land Reforms Deptt. Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Revenue And Land Reforms Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Collector, Purnea 5. The Addl. Collector (Land Ceiling) Purnea 6. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Purnea 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhamdaha, Distt. Purnea 8. The Circle Officer, Dhamdaha, Purnea 9. Prakash Chand 10. Gunjan Chand 11. Bahadur Chand S. No. 8 to 10 are Sons Of Late Pratap Narayan Chand @ Late Pratap Narayan Singh Resident Of Village Bishanpur (Dhauri) P.S. Dhamdaha, Distt. Purnea 12. Laxmi Ram Son Of Madhuri Ram 13. Bhikhari Paswan Son Of Dhanik Paswan 14. Panchu Ram S/O Agarchit Ram 15. Mahanti Ram 16. Bhuri Paswan Both Sons Of Late Mahavir Paswan 17. Prayag Rajak Son Of Late Chamru Rajak 18. Janardan Rajak Son Of Topo @ Dibu Rajak Sl. No. 12 to 18 are resident of village Sorkahi, P.S. Dhamdaha, District, Purnea… …..Respondents …………… For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Jha, Mr. Bhola Pd. Advocates For the State : Mr. Baiyanath Thakur, A.C. to S.C. 4 ………………….. 2 23.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 2 and the State. Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 30.8.2011 passed by respondent no.2 in Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2007, a certified copy of which stands appended as Annexure-5. The case under Section 45(B) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was filed by the petitioners for reopening of a ceiling case. A stand has been taken by the petitioners that the lands in question of Plot Nos. 140, 141, 82 and 83 and 394 appertaining to Khata No. 228 of a total area of about 5.76 acres were purchased by him vide annexure- 2, which is a registered sale deed of the year 1974, from one Panna Prasad Singh. The said Panna Prasad Singh had purchased the aforesaid lands from Ram Pratap Naranya Chand (since deceased) who, being the co-sharer of the recorded land holder Veer Narayan Chand, had got the same vide a judgment and decree in Partition Suit No. 26/1955. Subsequently, he transferred the lands by a registered sale deed executed in the year 1962 in 3 favour of the vendor of the petitioners, namely, Panna Prasad Singh. A copy of the sale deed stands appended as Anenxure-1. Learned counsel submitted that though these facts were brought to the notice of the authority concerned and the grounds were also taken in the memorandum of appeal appending therewith a copy of sale deed of 1974 and rent receipt granted by the State of Bihar in favour of the petitioners specially in Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the petition filed under Section 45 B of the Act, the respondent No.2 has skipped the same while deciding the issue. A copy of petition filed under Section 45 B of the Act has been produced at the time of hearing of this case on behalf of the petitioners. Let the same be kept on record. From the perusal of the aforesaid petition, it appears that a stand has been taken in Paragraph 6 that one Pratap Naryan Singh, who had got the aforesaid land vide a decision in the concerned partition suit had transferred the land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner, namely, Panna 4 Prasad Singh after getting permission from the Consolidation Officer, Dhandaha, in Case No. 326/1974 and, thereafter, in the Chakbandi record also lands were shown to be recorded in favour of the petitioners and subsequently land receipts have also been granted in their favour by the Sate of Bihar. However, the authority concerned has not considered the documents as well as the averments made on behalf of the petitioners in Paragraph 5, 6 and 7 etc. of such petition at all and without appreciation of the same, it has come to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to show as to how their vendor Panna Prasad Singh has got the land from the original landholders. Learned counsel appearing for the State is also not in a position to controvert the averments made on behalf of the petitioners in view of the fact that the grounds which have been taken in the concerned petition, do not appear to be discussed in the impugned order. As a result, I have no difficulty in holding that the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned 5 order without taking into account the points raised in the concerned petition and as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained on that account alone. As a result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.08.2011 as contained in Annexure-5 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 to consider the Misc. Case No. 1 of 2007 afresh in accordance with law also taking into account the averments made by the petitioners regarding the acquisition of the land in question by the vendor of the petitioners, namely, Panna Prasad Singh. Sanjay-II (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)