IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15706 of 2009 1. GANESH LAL THAKUR, S/O LATE MAHESH LAL THAKUR, R/O VILL- MIRZAPUR, P.S-FORBESGANJ (SIMRAHA) DISTT- ARARIA 2. RAMESHWAR THAKUR S/O LATE MAHESHLAL THAKUR, R/O VILL- MIRZAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ (SIMRAHA), DISTT- ARARIA 3. JAY PRAKASH THAKUR S/O GANESHLAL THAKUR R/O VILL- MIRZAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ (SIMRAHA), DISTT- ARARIA 4. RAM PRASAD THAKUR, S/O LATE BISHUNLAL THAKUR R/O VILL MIRZAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ (SIMRAHA), DISTT- ARARIA 5. RABINDRA THAKUR, S/O LATE BISUNLAL THAKUR, R/O VILL- MIRZAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ (SIMRAHA), DISTT- ARARIA 6. BINOD THAKUR, S/O LATE BISHUNLAL THAKUR R/O VILL- MIRZAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ (SIMRAHA), DISTT- ARARIA 7. AMAR KANT THAKUR S/O LATE BISHUNLAL THAKUR R/O VILL-MIRZAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ (SIMRAHA) DISTT- ARARIA -Versus- 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, ARARIA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORM, FORBESGANJ DISTT- ARARIA 4. MD. AADIL HASAN, S/O LATE MOHARRAIN ALI R/O VILL- MIRJAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ, DISTT- ARARIA 5. KHURSHID ALAM S/O LATE GULAM RASUL R/O VILL- MIRJAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ, DISTT- ARARIA 6. BIBI QURESHA D/O LATE GULAM RASUL R/O VILL-MIRJAPUR, P.S- FORBESGANJ, DISTT- ARARIA ----------- 3. 20.11.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the purchasers of lands from Private Respondent No.6 vide registered sale deed dated 23.01.1982. Petitioner No.3 is purchaser from Respondent No.5 under sale deed dated 02.05.2003. The remaining petitioners have acquired land from the sons of Moharrain Ali through a compromise judgment and decree dated 18.01.1974 passed in Title Suit No. 210 of 1973. 3. This Court is not inclined to recognize the validity of such transfer in this proceeding. Private respondents, being the land-holders, were allowed unit in terms of the provisions contained in the Land Ceiling Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and under orders dated 15.09.1988, Annexure-7 the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Araria allowed the land-holders to retain - 2 - in their unit the lands transferred by them during the ceiling proceeding to the extent permissible under the provisions of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject matter of the sale deed dated 23.01.1982 was not retained by Bibi Quresha, Respondent No.6 in her unit in compliance of the orders dated 15.09.1988, Annexure-7 and now the transferee, namely, Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are being threatened with dispossession. It is also submitted that after closure of the ceiling proceeding Respondent No.5 transferred the lands through registered sale-deed dated 02.05.2003 to Petitioner No.3 and possession of Petitioner No.3 over the aforesaid land is being threatened by the revenue administration of the district. 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the State, I direct the petitioners to approach the Collector of the District, Araria and submit before him that the subject matter of sale deed dated 23.01.1982 should have been included and retained in the unit of Respondent No.6 in terms of the order dated 15.09.1988 passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Araria, Annexure- 7. As regard the subject matter of sale deed dated 02.05.2003 petitioner no.3 should invite the attention of the Collector of the district that the sale deed having been executed after the closure of the ceiling proceeding should not be annulled in terms of the provisions under the Act without initiating a fresh proceeding or reopening the earlier proceeding, provided the subject matter of the said sale deed dated 02.05.2003 is the lands opted by Respondent No.5 in terms of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 9 of the Act. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)