IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16718 of 2007 Shakali Devi, w/o Sri Ram Chandra Sharma, R/V. Belsandi Tara, P.S. Bibhutipur, Distt.- Samastipur. ..... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the District Magistrate, Samastipur. 2. The Distt. Magistrate, Samastipur. 3. The Distt. Land Ceiling Reforms Officer, Samastipur. 4. The Circle Officer, Bibhutipur, Distt.- Samastipur. 5. Nirdhan Paswan, S/o Manu Paswan, R/V. Belsandi Tara, P.S. Bibhutipur, Distt.- Samastipur. ..... Respondents. ------ 02- 18.3.2009 Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar No.3 for the petitioner, and Mr. Ram Chandra Thakur, learned Standing Counsel No.4 (Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the show- cause notice dated 2.6.2007 (Annexure-3), issued under the signature of respondent no.4, whereby the petitioner has been called upon to show-cause as to why she has forcibly occupied the land in question which has been settled, and parcha has been issued, in favour of respondent no.5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of Ram Chandra Sharma, who figures at serial no.3 of the list of persons to whom notices have been 2 issued vide Annexure-3. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land in question by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 26.9.1973, from Shiv Gangadhar Prasad. In his submission, therefore, this is not a valid notice to the petitioner which is really addressed to her husband in a situation where the property is in her name. He further submits that the petitioner acquired title to the same by a registered deed of absolute sale dated 26.9.1973 from the previous land-holder. The land ceiling proceedings were started against the land-holder and, therefore, the land so acquired by the petitioner ought to have been included within the option of the land-holder within the meaning of Section-9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation to Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 3. The learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition. He further submits that in the scheme of the Act, all alienations after 9.9.19970 are Per-Se bad in law and the authorities are under no obligation to examine the bonafides of the transaction. 3 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The learned Standing Counsel is right in his submission that the petitioner has been called upon to show-cause with respect to the issue raised in the notice (Annexure-3). In other words, the entire matter is at large before respondent no.4 and the petitioner has needlessly rushed to this Court burdening it with a most unwanted matter. The surplus land of the land- holder has already been notified by means of notification under Section 15(1) of the Act and the requisite gazette publication has already been made. The land in question has already been settled in favour of respondent no.5 and parcha has been issued. It is open to the petitioner to show-cause and to make appropriate submissions before respondent no.4 in support of her stand. 5. In so far as the alleged defect in the notice is concerned, the petitioner is mindful of the position that the notice is really intended for her. She has become aware of the notice. It is common experience that a large number of ladies in the rural areas of 4 Bihar are uneducated and, therefore such notices are issued to the husband. I, therefore, do not find any defect in the notice. 6. In that view of the matter, this is a frivolous writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/