IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.16751 OF 2010 1. DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE BHOUMESHWAR MISTRI 2. SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF LATE BHOUMESHWAR MISTRI BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MILKI, POLICE STATION MIRGANJ, DISTRICT PURNEA …………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AT DHAMDAHA, DISTRICT PURNEA 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, DHAMDAHA, DISTRICT PURNEA 5. SHRI SACHINDRA NARAIN THAKUR, SON OF LATE DHYANI THAKUR 6. SHRI SUBODH KUMAR THAKUR, SON OF LATE DHYANI THAKUR 7. SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR THAKUR, SON OF LATE DHYANI THAKUR 5 TO 7 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RANGPURA, POLICE STATION MIRGANJ, DISTRICT PURNEA ……………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ********** 2 12/10/2010 The petitioners’ father had filed an application under Section 45 B of the Ceiling Act before the Collector, Purnea which was numbered as Case No. 53 of 1996/99 of 1995. The order sheet annexed as Annexure-4 indicates that the petitioners’ father was appearing before the Collector on almost all dates for seven years, however, the matter could not be disposed of. Thereafter, the petitioners’ father fell sick and the application under Section 45 B of the Ceiling Act was dismissed for default as the petitioners’ father stopped doing pairvi since 15.05.2000 and finally, on 05.04.2002 the case was dismissed for default. The petitioners were the students and were not aware of the case and finally they learnt about the dismissal of the application u/s 45 B of the Ceiling Act, an application for restoration was filed, which 2 was dismissed on 16.08.2010. The Collector, Purnea has rejected the restoration application on the ground that it was filed after eight years. This Court after considering the facts that the petitioners’ father pursued the 45B application for five consecutive years, it cannot be said that the petitioners were the only person responsible for the delay. The petitioners’ father merely gave up hope regarding the disposal of this case. The application for restoration indicates that the father of the petitioners had fallen sick and had subsequently died and, therefore, pairvi of the case discontinued. Be that as it may, considering the facts that there are laches on both sides, the order dated 16.08.2010 is hereby quashed and the Collector, Purnea is directed to rehear the matter on an application being filed by the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The application under Section 45B of the Ceiling Act may be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of filing of the application. In the result, this application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )