IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15426 of 2007 SRI KASHI NATH SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -with- CWJC No.15742 of 2007 SRI BUDHU SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 8. 19.08.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners are the purchaser of agricultural land measuring an area of 17 decimals and 1.38 decimals in plot no. 862 and 893 appertaining to Khata No. 114 of Village Bharat Kasba within Karakat Circle in the District of Rohtas from Mahant Mahadevanand Giri through three sale deeds dated 19.1.1967 and 06.04.1972. They are aggrieved by the notice issued by the Circle officer, Karakat dated 26.09.2007 as contained in Annexure-1 in both the applications, whereunder the Circle Officer has directed the petitioners to remove their possession from the lands in-question failing which their possession from the lands in-question would be forcibly removed. Having received the notice petitioners attempted to satisfy the authorities that having purchased the lands under the aforesaid sale-deeds they come in possession and were mutated in the revenue records of the State of Bihar Jamabandi of the lands in-question have already been opened in their name and from the date of execution of the 2 sale-deeds they are in peaceful cultivating possession and without annulling the sale-deed in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) issue of notice dated 26.09.2007, Annexure-1 is wholly without jurisdiction as during the ceiling proceeding initiated against their vendor Mahant Mahadevanand Giri bearing Ceiling Case No. 62 of 1973-74/ 12 of 1988-89 they were never served with any notice for the annulment of the three sale-deeds and until the sale-deeds are annulled after conducting an enquiry in terms of Sub-Section (iii) of Section 5(1) of the Act the authorities are not empowered in law to recover possession of the lands in-question from the petitioners. 3. This Court having appreciated the aforesaid submission called upon the State counsel to file counter affidavit. State-respondents have filed counter affidavit placing on record different orders passed in the ceiling proceeding initiated against Mahant Mahadevanand Giri with a view to satisfy this Court that petitioners were noticed in the said proceeding as also filed their show-cause reply in that proceeding. In that connection learned Counsel for the State has relied on the order dated 30.4.1977 as contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, wherefrom it appears that Raghubir Singh who is said to be the father of the petitioner Sri 3 Kashi Nath Singh (in C.W.J.C.No. 15426 of 2007) had filed the show-cause in the ceiling proceeding initiated against the land-holder, which show-cause according to the counsel for the State was considered under order dated 19.10.1978, Annexure-C. Perusal of the said order, however, does not indicate that the case of the petitioners in regard to their claim over the lands in-question through the sale-deed dated 19.1.1967 and 06.04.1972 was considered or the sale-deeds were annulled, as is required in terms of the provisions contained in Sub-Section (iii) of Section 5(1) of the Act. 4. As till date the sale-deeds in-question have not been annulled the authorities, in my opinion, are not empowered to issue any notice in the nature of notice dated 26.09.2007, Annexure-1 in the two applications, which is, accordingly, quashed and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Collector under the Act on 22nd September, 2008 so as to enable the Collector under the Act to serve a notice upon the two petitioners as to why the sale-deeds in-question be not annulled and petitioners should file their show-cause reply within three weeks of the date of receipt of the notice and thereafter the Collector under the Act shall pass appropriate reasoned orders in accordance with law. In the event the Collector under the Act holds that the sale-deeds in-question are not a sham transaction then he should allocate the lands in-question in the share of the land-holder, as is required 4 under Section 9(2) of the Act. 5. Both the writ applications are, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)