JUDGMENT N. PANDEY, J. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order of the Collector, Saharsa dated 22.8.90 in Misc. case no. 12/90-91 under Section 9(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act') whereby and where under prayer of the petitioner for release of the land purchased by him from the land holder was rejected. 2. The petitioner had purchased 2 bighas 9 dhurs of land through registered sale deed from respondent no. 10. Thereafter his name was recorded in the revenue records and jamabandi was created. The grievance is that in the ceiling case which was started against respondent no. 10 (vendor), the lands purchased by this petitioner was included and declared surplus. The petitioner, therefore, made an application under Section 9(2) of the Act before the Collector for necessary order to release such land. 3. It appears the petitioner had previously moved this court and filed two writ petitions bearing CWJC no. 5310/83 and thereafter CWJC no. 2692/89. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 23.1.84 and 14.9.89 respectively, with observation that the petitioner's claim shall be examined by the authorities. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-Collector has wrongly held that the petitioner had purchased without obtaining permission, hence not entitled to the privilege as available under section 9(2) of the Act. In support of the contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this court in the case of Thakur Girja Nandan Singh & ors. Vs. Collector, Sitamarhi & ors. reported in 1977 BBCJ 719 . 5. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case on behalf of the respondents nor the counsel appearing for the State could justify reasons to reject the application under Section 9(2) of the Act. 6. In my view, apart from the decision of this court as mentioned above, a bare reference of Section 9(2) of the Act it would appear that lands transferred either in accordance with or in contravention of the provisions of clause II of sub-section (1) of section 5, shall, to the extent not exceeding the ceiling area, be deemed to have been selected by him for retaining within the ceiling area. Reference in this regard can usefully be made to the decision of this court in the case of Md. Reference in this regard can usefully be made to the decision of this court in the case of Md. Salim Uddin & ors. vs. The State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1998(1) PLJR 38 and another case in the same volume at page 348 (Lakshmi Bhagat & ors. VS. The State of Bihar & ors. Although land holder has appeared but no objection was raised with regard to the prayer of the petitioner. 7. I, therefore, taking into consideration the facts stated above, allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order with a direction to the learned Collector to issue necessary order/notification after complying the requirement of section 9(2) of the Act so that the petitioner may be allowed such an area of the land from the lands which the land holder was allowed to retain.