IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.881 of 2006 1. Raju Pasi, son of Chokat Pasi 2. Lalmohan Ram, son of Bichandi Ram 3. Sudarsan Paswan, son of Bindeshwari Paswan All R/o vill-Patilar, Police Station Chautarwa, Dist. West Champaran at Bettiah --- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Additional Collector, West Champaran, at Bettiah 2A. Deputy Collector, Incharge, West Champaran at Bettiah 3. The Collector, West Champaran, at Bettiah. 4. Mahanth Swami Ramanand Giri, Chela of Swami Harihar Giri, R/o vill- Wakulhar, P.S. Chanpatia, Hal, Gopalpur, Dist. East Champaran. 5. Swami Maheshwaranand Puri, Chela of Swami Triveni Puri, R/o Amarnath Math, Dhundhi Raj Gali, Kashi, Dist. Varanasi (U.P.) at present R/o Behra, P.S. Sikta, Dist. West Champaran. 6. Swami Balanand Giri, S/o Brahmanand Giri, Chela Jyant Puri, R/o Gobindpur, Varanasi (U.P.) at present R/o Wakulpur Math, P.S. Chanpatia, Dist. West Champaran 7. Muzaffar Sah son of Mahraj Sah R/o vill-Rampurwa Tola Chaparia, P.S. & P.O. Mainatand, dist. West Champaran. 8. Colonel Rakesh Nandan son of J.N. Sharma, R/o Dudha Chuhari, P.S. Majhaulia, Dist. West Champaran, at present of 12 Nehru Road, Lucknow Cant P.s. Lucknow Dist. Lucknow (U.P.) 9. Md. Wasim Akhtar son of Late Momin R/o Wasta, P.S. Mainatand, dist. West Champaran. 10. Swami Puran Datta Giri, Chela of Kailash Nath Giri, R/o Nirbani Ashram, Haridwar P.S. Haridwar, Dist. Haridwar (U.P.) at present resident of village Wakulpar Math, P.s. chanpatia, Gopalpur, dist. West Champaran. ---Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay, S.C. XI ----------- 03 03.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Three petitioners herein claimed to be purcha holders in respect of part of lands which were declared surplus in the hands of the original landholders, namely, Mahanth Swami Ramanad Giri (Respondent no.4). They are aggrieved by the order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the respondent Collector, West Champaran Bettiah on different appeals preferred by the landholders as well as the purchasers. It appears from perusal of the order impugned 2 that purchasers of small tracts of land from the original land holders prior to 09.09.1970 ( treated as the intervenors by the Court) filed appeals being R.A. appeal nos. 04 of 2003-2004, 15 of 2002-2003, 02 of 2003-2004 and 31 of 2003-2004. On a consideration of the matter respondent Collector disposed of the batch of appeals in the following terms:- “4. On consideration of the facts and arguments as presented, I am inclined to agree with the learned G.P. The order dated 20.9.2002 of the A.C. is set aside and the matter, along with all related matters, is remanded to the court of the Additional Collector, for fresh enquiry into the grievances being raised by the various intervenors as also for giving due opportunity to each of them to submit their replies. The Additional Collector shall endeavour hard indeed ensure that the proceeding are finalized within a period of six months.” It, thus, appears therefrom that fresh enquiry was directed to be made in respect of the land claimed by the intervenors after giving them due opportunity. The Additional Collector was also directed to dispose of the proceeding afresh within 06 months. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to state the present status of the case before the said Court after remand since there is no stay order passed by this Court and considering the observation made in the impugned order the matter was to be disposed of by the respondent Additional Collector within a time frame. This petition was lodged in this Court on 23.01.2006. Petitioners being settlee(s) of part of the lands declared surplus in the hands of the original landholders, in 3 my view, cannot raise any grievance with regard to the order which has been impugned in the present application. In that view of the matter, this Court declines interference. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has strong apprehension that the matter shall again be lingered before the authority where the case has been remanded for fresh consideration. This Court makes it clear that if the ceiling proceeding has not been disposed of as yet as per the impugned order the same shall be disposed of on priority basis by the State respondent(s). The application stands disposed of. Sym (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)