Judgment S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioners of both the writ-petitions are common and there is common point of law involved in both the writ petitions, so they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In the writ-petition C. W. J. C. No.3413 of 1981 the order dated 20th of march, 1978 passed in Case No.645 of 1968-69 and 163 of 1972 as contained in annexure 2, is under challenge. By the said order (Annexure 2), the application, which was filed by the Respondent nos.2 to 10 for restoration of lands in their favour, in terms with Sec.3 of the Kosi Area (Restoration of Lands raiyats) Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the act), the same has been allowed. The appellate order dated 31st of august, 1981, as contained in Annexure 3 is also under challenge, by which the appeal petition of the petitioners having been rejected. 3. In the writ-petition C. W. J. C. No.3440 of 1981 the order dated 11th of april, 1978 passed in Case No.645 of 1968-69 and 163 of 1972 as contained in annexure 2, is under challenge, by which the application of the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 under Sec.3 of the act has been allowed. The appellate orders as contained in Annexure 3, which, is common in both the writ-petition is also under challenge in this case. 4. The facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioners and the contesting respondents are agnates. According to the petitioners, certain lands of Village sukaila Nirmali, P. S. Supaul (then district of Saharsa) were under Jamindari of Raja of Bafuari. There were two branches formed out of such jamindari, one under Shri Bhupendra Narain singh, popularly known as 9 annas and the other under Shri Gangeshwar prasad Singh, popularly known as 7 annas. The total land in question, with respect to both the writ petitions, having area of about 93 bighas and 7 dhurs. Admittedly, the same belonged to predecessor of the petitioner and the contesting respondents. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid total land in question was sold in an execution of rent decree, in between the year 1932 and 1938. The same was purchased by 7 annas Jamindar, extinguishing the rights of raiyats, including the contesting respondents. Further, according to the petitioners, out of the total land in question, the ancestor of the petitioners purchased certain lands from 7 annas jamindar. The same was purchased by 7 annas Jamindar, extinguishing the rights of raiyats, including the contesting respondents. Further, according to the petitioners, out of the total land in question, the ancestor of the petitioners purchased certain lands from 7 annas jamindar. Certain more lands were also purchased by some other persons from the said 7 annas Jamindar. 5 A joint petition was filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 10 of C. W. J. C. No.3413 of 1981 under Sec.3 of the act for restoration of lands in 48 Khatas having area of 79 Bighas 16 Kathas 5 dhurs, as has been described in the impugned Annexure 2 of the said writ application. Similarly a joint application was filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 of C. W. J. C. No.3440 of 1981 on 8th of April, 1978 with respect to separate half share, out of 93 bighas 7 dhurs of land. With respect to the petitioner filed by the Respondent Nos.2 to 10 of c. W. J. C. No.3413 of 1981 is concerned, the same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 20th of March, 1978 (Annexure 2 to the said writ petition ). The other petition, which was filed by the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 of C. W. J. C. No.3440 of 1981, the same has been allowed by the impugned order dated 11th of April, 1978 (Annexure 2 to the said writ petition ). Separate appeal petitions were filed by these petitioners against the aforesaid two orders (Annexure 2 of both writ petitions), which has been rejected by the common impugned appellate order, as contained in Annexure 3 to both the writ petitions. 6. At the time of argument, the counsel for the petitioners mainly referred to the impugned Annexures 2 to C. W. J. C. No.3413 of 1981 and advanced his argument on the point of law. Certain new facts were agitated on the basis of the impugned Annexure 2 to C. W. J. C. No.3413/81. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, in terms with provisions of the Act, a petition under Sec.3 of the Act is maintainable only if a land of raiyat was sold in on execution of a decree for arrears of rent. It was submitted that the land in question was sold in an execution proceeding, arises out a decree passed in a money suit. It was submitted that the land in question was sold in an execution proceeding, arises out a decree passed in a money suit. It was urged that the land in question having been sold in pursuance of an execution case arises out of a money suit, the petitions under Sec.3 of the Act, which were filed by the concerned contesting respondents were not maintainable. He further referred to provisions of Sec.4 of the Act, and stated that the other persons, who purchased the land 7 annas Jamindar, out of the land in question they were not noticed as required under Sec.4 of the Act, prior to the impugned decisions. It was further submitted that though in terms with the provisions of section 5 of the Act, it was to be looked into as to whether any building or other structure of permanent nature was constructed over the land in question or not; whether there was any garden planted over the land and/or portion of the land in question or not and as to whether any tank and/or any well as excavated over the land in question or not, but without deciding the same, the impugned orders have been passed in both the cases. Further, according to him, in terms with Sec.7 of the Act, though determination with respect to the land and amount should have been done at the time of restoration of land, the same was not determined, while the impugned orders were passed. He placed reliance on the impugned order dated 20th of March, 1978 (Annexure 2 to c. W. J. C. No.3413 of 1981) to substantiate the aforesaid argument. 7. The Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submitted that the land in question was sold in an execution proceeding arising out of a decree in a rent suit and thereby the petitioner under Sec.3 of the Act was maintainable. He relied on the discussions made by the respondent Deputy Collector, Land reforms at Page 39 of the impugned annexure 2 C. W. J. C. No.3413/81. Further, according to him, the petitioners having given notice, it is not open for the petitioners to raise the grievance that notices were not given to other parties when no other persons have moved before any Court of law. Further, according to him, the petitioners having given notice, it is not open for the petitioners to raise the grievance that notices were not given to other parties when no other persons have moved before any Court of law. So far as the provisions of Sec.5 of the Act is concerned, the Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners having not raised any objection nor have been brought to the notice of the authorities that they have constructed any building and/or permanent structure over the land in question and/or part thereon and having never intimated that any garden has been planted on any portion of the said land in question, it was not necessary for the authorities to decide the said question. It was further submitted that the petitioners also never claimed that any tank or a pucca well is available over the land in question or over any part thereof. So far as the provisions of Sec.7 of the Act is concerned, while relying on the impugned Annexure 2, it was submitted by the Counsel for the respondents that specific finding and determinations has been made with respect to the land in question and it has been specified as to whom the amount is to be given. It was further submitted that even the shares of the petitioners have been given, by way of restoration by impugned Annexure 2 to C. W. J. C. No.3413 of 1981. 8. Having heard the parties, I find that the petitions, which were filed by the respondents under Sec.3 of the act were maintainable. Petitioners themselves stated in the writ-petition that the land in question was sold in an execution proceeding which arose out of rent decree. Such statement of the petitioners is binding on them. Apart from the same, it will be evident from the discussions made by the respondent d. C. L. R. in the impugned Annexure 2 to C. W. J. C. No.3413 of 1981 (at page 57 of the writ petition), that he has taken into note that the auction took place on 25th of November, 1940, out of Execution Case No.1240 of 1940 which arose out of Rent Suit No.1014 of 1936; whereas the auction out of the execution proceeding, in pursuance of money suit took place much latter, i. e.8th of november, 1941. Thereby it was rigthly held that the land in question was sold in pursuance of an execution proceeding which arose out of rent decree and not out of a decree passed in a money suit. That part of the submission of the petitioners is rejected. 9. So far as the provisions of Sec.4 of the Act is concerned, admittedly the petitioners were given notice prior to the issuance of the impugned annexure 2 to both the writ petitions. In this background, it is not open to the petitioners to agitate as to whether notice was given to any other person or not, who are not the parties before this court. So far as the provisions of Section 5 of the Act is concerned, no pleading has been made by the petitioners that they have constructed any building or structure over the land in question. It has not been stated that any garden was planted by the petitioners over any part of the land, no claim has been made by the petitioners relating to excavation of any tank and/or pucca well over any part of the land in question. Such being the position, the petitioners having not made any of such claim, there was no necessity on the part of the respondent d. C. L. R. to decide the issue in terms with Sec.5 of the Act. So far as the provisions of Section 7 of the Act is concerned, it will be evident from the impugned Annexure 2 to c. W. J. C. No.3413 of 1981, that the petitioners have been given their share by way of restoration of land, over half of the land with their sub-branch. The rest of the half of land has been given to the other sub-branch. The petitioner have no right over the same and thereby nothing has been given in their favour, which will be evident from Annexure 2 to C. W. J. C. No.3440 of 1981. The share to which the petitioners are entitled, out of total land in question, to this extent the same has been restored in their favour. Further, it will be evident that the amount, which is payable, that has already been determined by the respondent d. C. L. R. and specifically it has been ordered as to who will receive the same on behalf of one or others. Further, it will be evident that the amount, which is payable, that has already been determined by the respondent d. C. L. R. and specifically it has been ordered as to who will receive the same on behalf of one or others. Thereby it is evident and clear that the provisions of Sec.7 of the Act has been followed by the respondent d. C. L. R. in both the cases. 10. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in both the writ petitions. Accordingly, I dismiss the same. No cost writ Petitions Dismissed.