IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20402 of 2010 1. GANESH LAL THAKUR, SON OF LATE MAHESH LAL THAKUR 2. RAMESHWAR THAKUR, SON OF LATE MAHESHLAL THAKUR, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MIRZAPUR P.S. FORBESGANJ(SIMRAHA) DISTRICT ARARIA ….PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR ARARIA 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LANDS REFORM, FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA. 4. HAZIA BIBI MASUDAN @ HAZIA MASLUN WIFE OF LATE DOST MOHAMMAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MIRJAPUR P.S. FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA …RESPODNENTS For the petitioners :Mr. Anil Prasad Singh For the State :Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, G.P.15 & :Mrs. Sunita Kumari, AC to GP 15 ----------- 04. 14.02.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioners assail the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure- 1), passed by respondent-Addl.Collector in a proceeding under section 9(2) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The case of the petitioners is that on 23.01.1982, they purchased 2.12 acres of lands appertaining to Khata No.365, R.S. Plot No. 5676 and 5679 measuring 1.17 acre and 0.95 acre respectively by a registered sale deed from respondent no.4 who is the widow of Late Dost Mohammad against whom a land ceiling proceeding was initiated. It is the stand of the petitioners that those sales for consideration were made by sale deeds executed much after 1970. It is the submission of the petitioners that those lands have been declared surplus. In this connection, he refers to the order dated 26.11.2008 passed in the aforesaid case. This Court finds from the order dated 15.09.1988, 2 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in L.C. Case No. 189/73-74 that objections on behalf of the petitioners were filed seeking exclusion of the land(s) from the said proceeding. Respondent- D.C.L.R. (Collector under the Act) by the said order found the sales made at item no.4 to 10 and 12 to 18 (which include the case of the petitioners at serial no.07) were made by registered deeds but without permission of the ceiling authority and accordingly lands covered by those sale deeds were directed to be kept in the land ceiling unit of the land holder(s). It is not the case of the petitioners that subsequent to the said order, a notification under section 11(1) of the Act followed by notification under section 15(1) of the Act were issued whereby the lands claimed by the petitioners were declared surplus by not complying the direction of the Authority under the Act. Regard being had to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds that present application is premature. There is no notification with regard to final statement issued under section 11(1) of the Act followed by another notification under section 15(1) of the Act finally acquiring the lands in question as surplus lands in the hands of the land holder(s). The application is accordingly dismissed as premature. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )