IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16740 of 2008 1. BILAKSHAN YADAV 2. RAM PRASAD YADAV 3. YOGENDRA PRASAD YADAV 4. RAM SUNDER YADAV, ALL SONS OF SRI BHOGILAL YADAV, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SAROJA BELA, NAYA TOLA, P.S. MARAUNA, DISTRICT SUPAUL. 5. DOMI KAMAT 6. MANIK LAL KAMAT, BOTH SONS OF LATE LAKSHMAN KAMAT 7. JAGDISH MANDAL SON OF LATE GUNESHWAR MANDAL 8. SHRI PRASAD MANDAL SON OF LATE JADU MANDAL 9. JAGANNATH MANDAL 10. SHIV NATH MANDAL 11. DINESH KUMAR MANDAL, ALL SONS OF LATE LAKSHMI MANDAL, PETITIONER NOS.5 TO 11 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PARARI, P.S. MARAUNA, DISTRICT SUPAUL. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE MINISTER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, SUPAUL. 4. THE SUB DIVISIOINAL OFFICER, NIRMALI. 5. THE ANCHALA ADHIKARI, MARAUNA ANCHAL, DISTRICT SUPAUL. 6. SHRI KAILU KAMAT 7. CHANDESHAWAR KAMAT 8. ASHOK KAMAT, ALL SONS OF LATE SAHDEO KAMAT, RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE PARARI, P.S. MARAUNA, P.O. MAUSHI, DISTRICT SUPAUL. ----------- 06. 23.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State as also counsel for private respondent nos.6 to 8, the purcha holder. 2. Petitioner nos.9 to 11 are permitted to withdraw from the writ application as it is submitted on their behalf by Sri Amit Bhushan, Advocate that they have nothing against the official/private respondents of this application. 3. Petitioner nos.1 to 8 are either the raiyat or the purchaser from the raiyat of 1.42 acres of land detailed in paragraph-4 of the writ application, so submitted counsel for the petitioners. They have filed this writ application questioning the correctness and validity of the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by the Hon,ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar in Case No.02 of 2002, Annexure-10, whereunder request of the petitioners for reopening the - 2 - Ceiling case No.269 of 1975-76/1976-77 under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act has been rejected for failure of the petitioners or their lawyer to appear in the proceeding. It appears in order to verify the contention of the petitioners that without notice to them the lands in question has been acquired in connection with the aforesaid ceiling case report was called for from the Collector, Supaul, which was not being received and the matter was being adjourned from time to time. The report was received on 25.1.2008 and was taken into consideration on 28.1.2008 when the counsel for the petitioners could not appear as they had no knowledge that the report of the Collector dated 25.1.2008 has been received. 4. Counsel for the State and the Pucha holder submitted that 28.1.2008 was the date fixed in the case and even if the learned counsel for the petitioners had no knowledge about the receipt of the report dated 25.1.2008 it was expected of him to be present in the proceeding on 28.1.2008 which was the date fixed. 4. True it is that on the date fixed petitioners or their counsel should have been present before the Hon’ble Minister but for failure of the counsel to appear in the proceeding, the interest of the petitioners, whose lands have been acquired without notice to them cannot been sacrificed. Accordingly, it is deemed expedient to direct the petitioners to pay a cost of Rs.500/-(Five hundred) each to private respondent nos.6, 7 and 8 on or before 19.4.2010 and on such payment order dated 28.1.2008, Annexure-10 is set aside with request to the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of - 3 - Bihar to proceed with the hearing of the matter on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioners, namely, the khatian and the sale deeds as also the documents filed by private respondents on the basis of which they are claiming that the lands in question belong to Harihar Sah and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within three months from 19.4.2010. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)