Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J, The petitioners pray to cancel declaration of 1.75 acres of land in plot No. 135 situate in mouza Sanhaula as surplus lands of respondent-Second party in Land Ceiling Case No.928 of 1976 by virtue of an order as contained in annexure-2 as also an order dated 31.3.1983, as contained in annexure-5, refusing to re-open the said case under section 45 -B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). 2. Shortly stated the case of the petitioners is that they had purchased the aforementioned land, alone with other lands, measuring in all 6.96 acres by a registered sale deed 1.7.1970 for a valuable consideration of Rs 33,500/-from respondents second party and consequently had come in possession. They had also got their names mutated in the Anchal and had started paying rents. In the year 1976 record of right in regard to the aforementioned lands was also finally published on 18.11.1976 as contained in annexure--l Despite all this in a proceeding initiated under the Act, against the second party for determining surplus area, their lands have been illegally treated as theirs and declared surplus without any notice to them as mandatorily required under section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act. Earlier also the petitioners had come up in C.W.J.C. No. 472 of 1982 which was by annexure-3 disposed of with a direction to them to file an application under section 45-B of the Act. 3. A counter affidavit dated 6.8.1983 has been filed on 11.8.1983 but it is not clear from the record as to whether its copy has been served upon the petitioners and Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that no copy of the counter affidavit has been served on him. 4. The facts stated above have not been denied in the said counter affidavit but it has been stated therein that at no stage the petitioners had objected nor had even the land holder brought to the notice of the authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act, is a mandatory provision. 4. The facts stated above have not been denied in the said counter affidavit but it has been stated therein that at no stage the petitioners had objected nor had even the land holder brought to the notice of the authorities. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act, is a mandatory provision. That not having been done, declaration of part of the lands of the petitioners as surplus without any notice to them was apparently without jurisdiction and thus the order as contained in annexure-2 in so far as the lands of the petitioners is concerned, is liable to be set aside. 6. Mr. S. N. Roy, Standing Counsel No. III, learned counsel for respondents nos. 1 to 3, submits that in view of the fact that the order as contained in annexure-2 was not earlier challenged by the petitioners they ale not entitled to the reliefs claimed for by this court. The petitioners were also not found in possession by the authorities. 7. Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act, is a mandatory provision which has not been complied with inasmuch as no notice was given to the petitioners. The finally published record of right (annexure-1) showing the petitioners in possession carried with it presumption of correctness and the continuity of the state of affairs both backward and forward. Thus it supports the case of the petitioners. The fact that they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar has also not been denied. In the aforementioned view of the matter, it is difficult to uphold the validity of annexuce-2. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order as contained in annexure-2 in so far as it relates to the land of the petitioners is concerned, as well as annexure-5 both are held to be illegal. 9. In the result, this writ application succeeds. The impugned orders as contained in annexures 2 and 5, in so far as it relates to the lands of the petitioners are quashed and the case is remanded to Respondent no.2 for proceeding in accordance with law after giving notice to the parties concerned. 10. There will be, however, no order as to cost. 11. Let a writ of Certiorari issue. Application allowed.