Judgment Binod Kumar Roy, J. 1. The four petitioners, namely, (1) Siya Devi, (2)Dharkhan Das, (3) Dasai Das and (4) Dasrath Das, pray to quash the notification dated 4-2-1983/8-2-1983 published under Sec.15 (i) of the bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the Act) in regard to the lands mentioned in Paragraph 2 of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner No.1 claims to have purchased the lands on 28th Jan. , 1957, 24th July, 1957 and 18th October, 1960, the petitioner No.2 claims to have purchased the lands on 21st Sept. , 1957 and the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 claims to have purchased the lands on 29th January, 1960 and 21st May, 1971, but without stating as to who was their vendor. It has also not been stated as to whether the purchase in question was joint. It has also not been further stated that out of 9 plot numbers, detailed in Paragraph 2, which petitioner has purchased which land though it has been asserted that they have got their name a mutated and Register-II of the State of Bihar stands in their names and that they are getting receipts also. It has beon asserted that the said notification has been made pursuant to a case started against one Most Dil Kuer, who has cot been impleaded as a party-respondent to this writ application, and that no notice was issued to them (the petitioners) of any proceeding under Section. (i) (iii) of the Act. 3. Mr. Shivanandan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioners, prays to quash the impugned notification on the grounds, inter-alia, that no notice of the proceeding was ever issued to the petitioners and that the transactions made in their favour before 15-10-1959 cannot be made subject matter of any enquiry under Sec.5 (i) (iii) of the Act. 4. However, I am of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the best course for the petitioners, for the present, is to file a petition under Sec.45 (B) of the Act before the Collector, East Champaran (Respondent no.2) for reopening the proceedings initiated against Most. Dil kuer, in which the impugned notification (as contained in Annexure-1) has been made. 5. Dil kuer, in which the impugned notification (as contained in Annexure-1) has been made. 5. I, accordingly, while dismissing this writ application, direct the petitioners to file aa application within one month from today before respondent No.2 for exclusion of their lands on the grounds which they may consider appropriate. If such an application is filed, status quo in regard to the lands detailed in the said application shall be maintained in view of the fact that at the time of admission of this writ application on 19-5-1983, the Division Bench had passed an order that the lands mentioned in paragraph 2 shall not be settled during the pendency of this writ application. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. Before parting with this judgment, I clarify that I have neither accepted and/or rejected tho case of the petitioners on merit, which has to be adjudicated by Respondent No.2. Writ Petition dismissed.