IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16765 of 2011 1. Biranchi Mukhiya son of late Boudhu Mukhiya, 2. Rameshwar Mukhiya son of late Sukhdeo Mukhiya, 3. Dhrup Lal Mukhiya son of late Boudhu Mukhiya, 4. Dhuni Mukhiya @ Bhumi Mukhiya, son of late Shukdeo Mukhiya, All are resident of village Khutti Dhunaili, P.S. K. Nagar, District, Purnea…… …….Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Collector, Purnea, 2. The Executive Magistrate, Purnea, 3. The Circle Officer, K. Nagar, Purnea, 4. Kumar Sachchidanand Singh son of late Ganganand Singh, 5. Smt. Manorama Jee wife of Kumar Sachchidanand Singh Respondent nos. 4 to 5 are resident of Sri Nagar Deorhi, P.S. K. Nagar District, Purnea, 6. Saryug Rishi son of Mishri Rishi, 7. Bhasasa Rishi son of Laxmi Rishi, 8. Sanichar Rishi son of Tetar Rishi, 9. Kaleshwar Rishi son of Parmeshwar Rishi, 10. Jagdeo Rishi son of Janak Rishi, 11. Shonishi Rishi son of Shyamal Rishi Respondent nos. 6 to 11 are resident of village Khutti Dhunaili, P.S. K. Nagar, District Purnea… ….Respondents ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh Avinash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, A.C. to S.C. 8 …………………….. 2 27.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners seek direction to the respondents not to declare the land in question, 2 which is the petitioners’ land, as surplus land of the land holder without giving any reasonable notice to the petitioners to appear and hear under the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. A ground has been taken by the petitioners that they being the purchaser from the year 1965 from the land holder, no notice was required to be issued to him. However, in view of the fact that admittedly there has been notification under Section 15(1) of the Act as back as on 1.6.1990 itself and the petitioners have moved this Court after a delay of about 21 years. However, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that under some advice, the petitioners along with other had bona fidely filed Title Suit No. 264 of 1990 before the Munsif Sadar, Purnea, which remained pending for about 20 years and the same has been dismissed in view of the fact that the same would beyond the jurisdiction of this court to examine the issue. Thus, the petitioners have moved before this 3 Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners produces a photo-copy of the plaint of the aforesaid title suit. Let it be kept on record. However, learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioners still have an alternative remedy before the appropriate authority under Section 45 B of the Act. In above view of the matter, the petitioners would be at liberty to move before appropriate authority under Section 45B of the Act for reopening of the case. If such application is filed, let the same be disposed of by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. This is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case of the petitioners. This application is disposed of in the terms as indicated above. Sanjay-II ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)