IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2439 of 2001 TAPAS KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -with- CWJC No.2542 of 2001 RAJESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -with- CWJC No.2556 of 2001 RAM NANDAN SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners:- M/S S.B.P.Singh,N.B.N.Singh,Rajendra Pd. Singh and Sudhir Kumar, Advocates. For the State:- Mr. K. Thakur, J.C. to S.C. IV (Ceiling). ------------ 5. 01.09.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State, S.C.4 (Ceiling). 2. Petitioners are the landholders. They have filed these writ applications against the order dated 29.02.2000, passed by the Additional Collector, Begusarai in Land Ceiling Case No. 13 of 1975-76, Annexure-7 and order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the District Collector, Begusarai in Land Ceiling Case No. 13 of 1975-76, Annexure-9, whereunder their petition under Section 45 B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that their lands were acquired in connection with land ceiling proceeding bearing Case No. 13 of 1975-76, initiated against Ram Bahadur Singh, another landholder by - 2 - publishing Begusarai District Gazette under Section 15(1) of the Act. No sooner the petitioners learnt that their lands have been acquired along with the lands of another landholder Ram Bahadur Singh they approached this Court in three writ applications bearing Nos. 8256 of 1991, 8254 of 1991 and 6359 of 1991 which were disposed of under orders dated 13.12.1991, 12.01.1993 and 07.10.1991 respectively, Annexure-3 directing the petitioners to approach the District Magistrate invoking his jurisdiction under Section 45 B of the Act. 4. In compliance of the aforesaid direction of the High Court petitioners filed petition under Section 45 B of the Act before the Collector of the District who having considered the request of the petitioners in the light of the observations of the High Court under order dated 24.07.1996, Annexure-5 reopened the matter and directed the Deputy Collector Land Reforms to examine the claim of the petitioners as to whether they held any surplus land in terms of the provisions of the Act. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms having considered the claim of the petitioners submitted his recommendation which is dated 15.12.1997 and is contained in Annexure- 6 to these applications, perusal whereof indicates that petitioners had no surplus land still said recommendation was not accepted under the two impugned orders dated 29.02.2000 and 20.10.2000, - 3 - Annexures- 7 and 9 as the Additional Collector was of the view that under Section 45 B of the Act the District Collector could not have sent the matter for enquiry and disposal to the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid views of the Additional Collector recorded in his order dated 29.2.2000, Annexure-7 is based on the circular letter of the State Government bearing No. 1492 dated 15.05.1989, Annexure-4 which circular letter stood withdrawn under subsequent circular letter no. 1472 dated 27.08.1990, Annexure-4/1. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that while the matter remained pending before the Collector of the District they appeared before her on their own and made attempts to satisfy her about the aforesaid legal position but they were prevented from doing so as the District Bar Association had chosen to boycott the court of the learned Collector on 15.07.2000, as is evident from the certificate granted by the Secretary of the Association and the counsel for the petitioners. The certificates are dated 03.01.2001 and 10.01.2001 and is contained in Annexures 8, 8/1 and 8/2 to these applications and it is submitted that the counsel for the petitioners in the light of the said resolution of the Association could not appear before the Collector of the District on 15.07.2000 and when he attempted to submit the notes of argument on - 4 - 22.07.2000 the same was not accepted which is evident from the certificate of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is, thus, evident that order dated 20.10.2000, Annexure-9 has been passed by the Collector of the District without the benefit of the submission of the counsel for the petitioners. 5. The order dated 20.10.2000 passed by the District Collector, Begusarai in Land Ceiling Case No. 13 of 1975-76, Annexure-9 is appealable, as such, these three writ applications are disposed of with direction to the petitioners to file appeal against the aforesaid order dated 20.10.2000, Annexure-9 before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger within four weeks from today, who should condone the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 20.10.2000, Annexure-9 as the matter has remained pending in this Court for over six years and after condoning the delay in filing the appeal, proceed to hear the appeal against the order dated 20.10.2000, Annexure-9 in accordance with law. Until the appeal is taken for admission and interim order is passed, status quo, as existing today, shall be maintained. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)