Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. All these applications having arisen out of the same ceiling proceeding have been taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. However, the fact involved in each matter would be noticed separately. 3. In all these writ applications the petitioners have questioned a notification dated 31-12-1986 published in the district Gazette No.40 dated 1-1-1987 whereby the land claimed by the petitioner has been declared as surplus land of the land holder Saryug Prasad Bhagat in gelling case No.4 of 1973/74 apart from the orders passed against the petitioner in their respective cases, as would be noticed hereinafter. 4. Cwjc No.4038 of 1992 : (a) In this application the petitioner has questioned an order dated 19-11-1990 passed by the Collector, Katlhar in Misc, Ceiling case No.514/1990-91 whereby his application under Sec.4s-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Celling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act)has been rejected. (b) The petitioner claimed himself to be the owner of the lands, details whereof have been stated in Paragraph 4 of the writ petitlon which reads as follows : - 4_602_BLJ2_1993.htm (c) The petitioners father purchased lands of Khata No.14 from the respondent No.4 by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 6-12-1962. It is stated that the lands of Khata No.6 of mouza Pipara originally belonged to one Mukti Prasad Bhagat who transferred the same in favour of the respondent No.3 by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 6-11-1974. He while in Khas possession of the said lands transferred the same in favour of the petitioner by a registered sale deed dated 1-3-1982. The petitioner has contended that he has constructed a house on the said land. After getting his name mutated in the office of the State of Bihar, he has also been paying rent to the State of bihar. It has been contended that the land holder Saryug Prasad Bhagat had nothing to do with the lands in question. The petitioner having cone to learn about issuance of the notification under section 15 (1) of the said Act filed an application purported to be under Sec.35 of the said Act which was numbered as celling Case Nos.71/87-88 and therein a report was called for from the Anchal Adbikarl, Kadwa. The petitioner having cone to learn about issuance of the notification under section 15 (1) of the said Act filed an application purported to be under Sec.35 of the said Act which was numbered as celling Case Nos.71/87-88 and therein a report was called for from the Anchal Adbikarl, Kadwa. (d) The petitioner in Paragraph 12 of the writ application has stated thus : - "that the C. O. Kadwa after holding enquiry submitted his report dated 26-5-1989 before the Additional Collector, ceiling, Katihar. The G. O. Kedwa in his report clearly stated that lands of Mauza Bahidola, thana No.243 Khata no.14 Plot Nos.7, 8 and 9 area 0 62 acres, 0 92 acre and 0.07 acres respectively in total 1.67 acres were purchased by the father of the petitioner long time back in the year , 1962 from the one Gaud Shankar Bhagat. The lands have been mutated in the name of purchaser and the rent is being paid by the petitioner. With regard to the land of mauza Pipara Thanka No.239, Khata Nos.6 and 5 Plot nos.65 and 86 area 0.26 acres and 0.25 acres respectively as well as lands of Khata No.63 Plot No.127 area 0.14 acres in total 0.66 acres were purchased by the petitioner from Shyam Lal Bhagat for a valuable consideration of rs.3,000/- in the year 1982. These lands have been mutated in the name of the petitioner and Jamabandi has been created in the name of petitioner and rent is being paid by him. The C. O. also reported that in course of spot enquiry he found the petitioner in possession of the lands. " (e) The Additional Collector, however, by reason of an order dated 1-6-1989 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application rejected the said application. (f) The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Sec.45-B of the said Act. The Collector by reason of an order dated 19-11.1990 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition rejected the said application on the ground that as purchases having been made after 9-9-1970 without obtaining the permission of the Collector, the same cannot be held to be valid and thus no case for reopening of the said proceeding has been made out. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision application before the Member Board of Revenue who by on order dated 23-3-1991 (Annexure-5)rejected the same on the ground of limitation. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision application before the Member Board of Revenue who by on order dated 23-3-1991 (Annexure-5)rejected the same on the ground of limitation. (g) The petitioner has contended that neither any proceeding for annulment of their deeds of transfer as contemplated under section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act had been initiated nor the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing in the said proceeding. It has further been contended that in any event although transfers had been effected after ,9-9-1970, no prior permission from the collector was required to be taken as at the relevant point of time no land ceiling proceedings as against land holder has been pending. 5. Cwjc No.4145 of 1992 : (a) This application is directed against an order dated 19-11-1990 passed by the Collector Katihar in Misc. Ceiling Case No.516/1990-91. The petitioner claimed himself to be the owner of the lands of Plot No.213 measuring 1.52 acres and Plot No.215 measuring an area of 1.13 acres and Plot No.212 measuring an area of 1.13 acress and Plot No.212 measuring an area of 0.19 acres under Khata No, 86, Thana No.244 of Mauza-Garalet, p. S. Kadwa, district Katihar. The said lands allegedly belonged to one Ram Prasad Das and his three brothers, who sold the same to one Shiv Prasad Bhagat, husband of the respondent No.3 by reason of a registered deed of sale dated 29-9-1963. Shri Shiv Prasad Bhagat by a registered deed of sale dated 9-1-1975 sold the same to the petitioner wherefor prior permission of the Cirle Officer Kadwa had been obtained. The petitioner got his name mutated and has been paying rent therefor. The additional Collector Land Reforms issued notices to the petitioner and other purchasers and they filed their respective objections. (b) According to the petitioner, although the Land Reforms Deputy collector did not annul the sale deed, but clubbed the lands in question with the lands of the land holder. (c) The petitioner filed an application under Section before the additional Collector, Ceiling Katihar which was numbered as celling Case No.28 of 1988, 70 of 1987-88) who by an order dated 18-8-1980 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application held that as notification under Sec.15 (i) of the said Act has already been issued, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. (d) The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Sec.35 read with Sec.45-B of the Act before the Collector. Katihar who by reason of an order dated 19-11-1990 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application dismissed the said application. It has been contended that the Collector has committed an error of record insofar as he held that the petitioner did not file any document or obtain prior permission before the execution of the sale deed inasmuch as the said documents were filed in a proceeding under Sec.5 (i) (iii) of the said Act and prior permission of the Circle Officer Kadwa had also been obtained. 6. Cwjc No 4146 of 1992 : (a) In this application, the petitioner has questioned an order dated 19-11-1990 passed in Misc. Ceiling case No.515/1990-91 whereby the collector has rejected an application filed by the petitioner under sections 45-B and 35 of the said Act on the ground that the transfers have been made after 9-9-1970 without obtaining prior permission of the Collector. (b) The petitioner claimed himself to be the owner of the lands in plot No.022 acres of Plot No.85.0.41 decimals of lands of plot No.88, under Khata No.3 and also an area of 0.43 decimals of Plot No.87 as well as 0.15 decimals of land of plot No.86 under Khata No.5, Thana No.230 Touzi, No.29 situated in Mazua Pipra, Police Station, Kadwa, district Katlhar. (c) The petitioner has contended that the lands in question belonged to Mukati prasad Bhagat son of Saryug Prasad Bhagat. On 6-4-1964, he transferred the lands in question in favour of shyam Lal Bhagat. The said Shyam Lal Bhagat executed the registered deed of sale dated 1-3-1982 in favour of the petitioner for valuable consideration whereupon the petitioner came in possession of the lands and got his residential house constructed on a portion thereof. The petitioner also got his name mutated and has been paying rent therefor to the State of Bihar. The said Shyam Lal Bhagat executed the registered deed of sale dated 1-3-1982 in favour of the petitioner for valuable consideration whereupon the petitioner came in possession of the lands and got his residential house constructed on a portion thereof. The petitioner also got his name mutated and has been paying rent therefor to the State of Bihar. (d) According to the petitioner he came to learn that the lands in question have been included in the lands of Saryug Prasad bhagat, father of Mukati Prasad Bhagat, in the land celling proceeding without any notice either to him or to Shyam Lal bhagat or to the petitioner whereupon he filed an application under Sec.37 of the Act before the Additional Collector celling, Katihar who although obtained a report from the circle Officer but rejected the contention of the petition by an order dated 18-8-1990 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application on the ground that he had no Jurisdiction to consider the matter. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for reopening of the proceedings under Sec.45-B of the Act before the Collector, Katlhar which was registered as Ceiling Case No.514/90-91 but the same was also dismissed by an order dated 23-3-1991 on the ground that the purchases were made after 9-9-1970 without Collectors prior permission. A revision application was filed against the said order but the same was dismissed on the ground of limitation. (e) The State has filed counter-affidavit In this case. The said counter-affidavit has been sworn by the Circle Officer, Kadwa. It has been contended in the counter-affidavit that transaction have been made by Saryug Prasad Bhagat in the name of his wife Reshmi Devi and Shiv Prasad Bhagat and the said transfers had been made with a view to defeat the object of the Act. It has been contended that the deeds of sale executed after 9-9-1970 are illegal having been made without obtaining prior permission of the Collector as contemplated under Sec.5 (1) (ii) of the act. It has further been stated that the permission granted by Circle Officer, Kadwa is a nullity. It has been stated that in a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act the petitioner was also noticed and he had filed a show case and by an order dated 5-3-1983 the Additional collector annuled the same made by Shiv Prasad Bhagat. It has been stated that in a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act the petitioner was also noticed and he had filed a show case and by an order dated 5-3-1983 the Additional collector annuled the same made by Shiv Prasad Bhagat. It has thus been stated that in this situation, the order of the collector refusing to reopen the proceeding is not illegal. 7. C. W. J. C. No.11656 of 1992 ; (a) This application is directed against an order dated 19-11-1990 passed by the Collector, Katihar in Misc. Ceiling Case No.510-90-91 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under section 45-B of the said Act was rejected. The petitioner has contended that he is onwer of R. S. Khata Nos 557 plot No 193 area 1.52 acres, Khata No, 562 and 199 area 116 Pot No.200 area 0.53 acres, of land total in 3.23 acres of land which was purchased by him through a registered deed of sale dated 31-3.1965 from Reshmi Devi wife of Late Saryug Prasad Bhagat. In the said proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the said Act the lands were directed to be excluded but despite the same they have been included in the notification issued under Sec.15 (1)of the said act as surplus land of the land holder Saryug Prasad Bhagat. (b) According to the petitioner by an order dated 16-8-1984 the additional Collector Katihar held that the transfers mentioned at Serial Nos.1 to 35 in the order were genuine transfers, as the land holder has no connection therewith and as such the lands which were the subject-matter thereof were directed to be excluded. The said order is contained is Annexure-1 to the writ application. (c) However, having come to learn that despite the same, the lands of the petitioner have been included in a notification under section 15 (1) of the Act issued in respect of the aforementioned land holder Saryug Prasad Bhagat he filed an application under section 47 of the Act and whereafter the Additional Collector transferred the records to the Collector Katihar, who, however, teiected the said application holding that although the petitioners had various opportunities of filing objections and appeals but he having not taken recourse thereto, his application under Sec.47 was not maintainable. (d) In this case a counter affidavit has been filed which has been supported by the Circle Officer, Kadwa. (d) In this case a counter affidavit has been filed which has been supported by the Circle Officer, Kadwa. In this case it has been denied that the Additional Collector by his order dated 16-8-1984 excluded the lands of the petitioner. It has been contended that the remedy of the petitioner was to prefer an appeal and as no appeal has been preforred under Sec.30 of the Act his application under Sec.37 was not maintainable. It has been stated that the lands In question has been distributed In favour of the respondent Nos.7 to 10 and they are in possession thereof. 8 Mrs. Miridula Mlshra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in all the writ applications submitted that the learned collector Katihar has committed an illegality insofar as he failed to construe sections 37 and 45-B of the said Act in their proper perspective. 9. The learned counsel has further submitted that there had been no land celling proceeding as against the sons of the land holder and thus they had a right to transfer the lands. 10. It has further been submitted that in any event, the petitioner of C. W. J. C. No.4038 of 1992 having not been given any notice nor any proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act have been initiated against him, the impugned order must be held to be illegal, 11. Admittedly a land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Saryug prasad Bhagat. He was granted three units, one for himself, second for son mukati Prasad Bhagat and third for his another son Shiv Prasad Bhagat. 12. In C. W. J. C. Nos.4038 and 4145 of 1992 no counter-affidavit has been filed. The State has therefore not denied that the petitioner of c. W. J. C. No.4038 of 1992 was not noticed and no proceeding under section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act was initiated against him. 13. In this case, the petitioner is a purchaser from Shyam Lal Bhagat son of Late Thakur Prasad Bhagat who had nothing to do with the Saryug prasad Bhagat. In the land celling proceeding against Saryug Prasad bhagat. Thus the transfers made by Shyam Lal Bhagat and Thakur prasad Bhagat could not have been taken into consideration. 14. In this view of the matter, the petitioners application under section 37 of the said Act was maintainable. In the land celling proceeding against Saryug Prasad bhagat. Thus the transfers made by Shyam Lal Bhagat and Thakur prasad Bhagat could not have been taken into consideration. 14. In this view of the matter, the petitioners application under section 37 of the said Act was maintainable. The Collector of the District is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order. This application is therefore allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. 15. In C. W. J. C. No.4145 the lands in questions admittedly belonged to one of the sons of the land holder Shiv Prasad Bhagat. The said shiv Prasad Bhagat transferred the lands in question by reason of deed of sale executed on 9-7-1985 i. e. after 9-9-1970. A proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) was admittedly initiated. It has been noticed hereinbefore that only the deeds of sale which were mentioned at Serial Nos.1 to 35 were excluded. The petitioner has not contended that the lands claimed by him had also been excluded. The petitioners therefore, cannot be heard to say that he was not noticed in the said proceedings. He being a party to the proceeding for annulment, the petition under Sec.45-B of the Act was not maintainable. The only remedy of the petitioner was to file an application before the Collector in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act inasmuch as in terms thereof the land transferred by a landholder after 9-9-1970 would be deemed to have been selected by him. This application is therefore, dismissed with the aforementioned observations. 16. In C. W. J C. No.4146 of 1992 evidently Mukati Prasad Bhagat transfarred the lands on 6-4-1964 in favour of Shyam Lal Bhagat. It is not the case of the State that the aforementioned Shyam Lal Bhagat was given a notice in a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act. 17. In this situation, unless the deeds of sale executed by Mukati prasad Bhagat had. been annulled in a duly constituted proceeding, the same could not have been clubbed as the land belonging to the land holder. 18. In this situation, the Collector of District may direct initiation of a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act and the same may be decided in presence of the petitioner and bis vandors Shyam Lal Bhagat. 19. 18. In this situation, the Collector of District may direct initiation of a proceeding under Sec.5 (1) (iii) of the Act and the same may be decided in presence of the petitioner and bis vandors Shyam Lal Bhagat. 19. In C. W. J. C. No.11656 of 1992 the petitioner has contended that this land has been excluded whereas the contention of the state is that his land has not been excluded. 20. Mrs. Mirdula Mishra, submitted that the sale deed has been mentioned at Serial No.35 of the lands whereas according to the State the same is at Serial No.34 therein. It now appears from the records that the petitioners name appeared at Serial No.35. The Collector of the district has this no other option but to direct de-notification of the land in question. 21. In this view of the matter, the Collector of the District is hereby directed to consider the matter afresh and issue a notification de-notifying the lands in question. 22. These applications are disposed of on the above terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.