Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 685 of 1981. While upholding the claim of the writ petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein the learned Judge has directed the respondent-State to find out lands for rehabilitation of respondent Nos. 5 to 13. 2. The background of the case in which the aforesaid order came to be passed, shortly stated, is as follows. The writ petitioner had filed application seeking declaration of his sikmi rights under Sec. 48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act which was allowed by the Collector under the said Act. The land in question, however, in the meantime, was distributed amongst the landless Harizans being respondent Nos. 5 to 13 treating the same as surplus land of the land-holders under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (in short the Ceiling Act). He came to this Court challenging the settlement and grant of purcha to the said respondents. Relying on the decision of the Collector under Sec. 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, the learned Single Judge held that only such land could be distributed as are not in possession of under-raiyat deriving the right under Sec. 22 of the Ceiling Act. The Learned Judge also observed the provision of Sec. 27 of the Ceiling Act for settlement of surplus land are subject to the provisions of Sec. 22 of the Act. The impugned order accordingly, was set aside. After setting aside the order, he passed further order directing the respondents to find lands for rehabilitation of the said respondents and settle the same with them, which is subject-matter of this appeal. 3. Counsel for the appellants challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, submitted that in the counter-affidavit, it had specifically been stated that no surplus land was available in the village which could be settled with respondent Nos. 5 to 13 and, therefore, the learned Judge committed error in issuing the impugned direction. 4. Notice was issued to the said respondents, who figure as respondent Nos. 2 to 10 in this appeal, but there is no appearance by them. In fact, they did not appear before the Single Judge either. It appears to us that they are not interested in pursuing the matter. 5. 4. Notice was issued to the said respondents, who figure as respondent Nos. 2 to 10 in this appeal, but there is no appearance by them. In fact, they did not appear before the Single Judge either. It appears to us that they are not interested in pursuing the matter. 5. In view of the specific stand taken before the learned Single Judge as well as before us that there is no land available which can be settled with the respondents concerned, considering that they do not seem to be interested for such settlement, we set aside the aforesaid part of the judgment and direction. The appeal stands allowed to that extent. There shall be no order as to costs.