IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15105 of 2007 1. Nageshwar Prasad Singh Son of Late Asarfi Prasad Singh resident of village Gajichak, Police station Dhoraiya Dist. Banka 2.Phuldeo Mandal son of Late Udesh Mandal 3. Matru Mandal son of Late Rameshwar Mandal Both resident of village Barhari P.S. Goradih Dist. Bhagalpur Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Magistrate cum Collector, Bhagalpur 3. The Additional Collector, Bhagalpur 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Bhagalpur 5. The Circle Officer Goradih/Sabour, Bhagalpur 6. Sudama Devi, wife of Late Bishwanath Kumar 7.Anandi Kumar wife of Late Chanchal Kumar of village Sonbarsha P.S. Bihpur Dist. Bhagalpur 8. Kailash Bihari Roy son of Late Daroga Roy resident of village Narkatia P.S. Bihpur Dist. Bhagalpur 9. Ram Deo Kumar son of Late Kamleshwari Kumar resident of village Sonbarsa P.S. Bihpur Dist. Bhagalpur ----------- Respondents 2 03.03.2009 Heard Mr Gopal Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs Kumari Amrita learned Standing Counsel no. I (Ceiling). It arises out of land ceiling proceedings. Three petitioners have joined the writ petition who are purchasers from their respective land owners after 9.9.1970, claiming that the same may be included within the land ceiling area of their land owners. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have purchased the following lands: dz0 [kjhnnkj dk uke fodzsrk dk uke dokyk [kkrk [ksljk jdok la0 la0 , Mh 1- ukxs’oj iz0 flag dSyk’k fcgkjh 3164 14 64 0-62½ firk Lo0 jk; 18-4-78 ds v’kQhZ izlkn flag Hkhrj 2- Qqynso eaMy jkenso dqekj 4876 14 62 ds 0-66 firk Lo0 mns’k 14-5-79 176 129]144 Mh0 eaMy 147]399 - 2 - ds Hkhrj 3- eV: eaMy dSyk’k fcgkj 3166 14 72 0-62½ firk Lo0 jk; 18-4-78 ds Mh0 jkes’oj eaMy Hkhrj It further appears that their vendors did not include the lands so alienated in favour of the petitioners in their option in terms of section 9 (2) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. The matter seems to have been finally concluded and it is difficult to reopen the same. It is primarily a matter between the vendor and the vendee(s). Furthermore, from a perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the land owners have alienated all the lands which were declared surplus and are left with no land. I find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. (S.K.Katriar, J) shahid