Judgment 1. Heard. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 8.9.2006 passed in Misc. Ceiling Case no. 69/1991-92 passed by the Collector of the district, Purnea, by which his application purporting to be under section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, has been dismissed. 3. The petitioners had purchased by the registered sale deeds certain lands prior to 9.9.1970. A Land Ceiling proceedings were initated against their vendors- land holders by the Collector Even though the petitioners had purchased the lands by registered sale deeds and the land holders apparently having disclosed the same no notice was issued to the petitioners nor any enquiry was made from the petitioners in this regard by the Collector in the ceiling proceedings. 4. The ceiling proceedings were then decided without including these lands in terms of Section 9(2) of the Act. If the transaction was held to be for the purpose of evading the provision of the Act they ought to have been included in the hands of the land holders otherwise if those sales were held to be bonafide, they had to be excluded from the proceeding against the land holder. They were declared surplus. The petitioners or their prodecessor-in-interest challenged the said declaration before this court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 6241/1990. Their primary challenge was that the entire proceedings stood vitiated as they being the bonafide purchasers before 9.9.1970 neither they having been noticed nor any enquiry made, the declaration as surplus lands stood vitiated. This Court disposed of the writ petition by judgment and order dated 22.4.1991 directing that the petitioners had remedy by way of approaching to the Collector under section 45B or 37 of the Ceiling Act. 5. I may notice that the said two provisions authorised the Collector of the district to interfere in appropriate manner in appropriate cases. 6. Pursuant to order of this court, an application was filed before the Collector of the district and registered as Misc. Ceiling Case no. 69/1991-92 and the proceedings were taken up and kept pending and ultimately as Sec. 37 and Sec. 45B of the Act were deleted and amended respectively, the Collector dropped the proceedings by order dated 13.10.1995. 6. Pursuant to order of this court, an application was filed before the Collector of the district and registered as Misc. Ceiling Case no. 69/1991-92 and the proceedings were taken up and kept pending and ultimately as Sec. 37 and Sec. 45B of the Act were deleted and amended respectively, the Collector dropped the proceedings by order dated 13.10.1995. This action of the Collector was again challenged before this court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8835/1996, which was disposed of by order dated 17.9.1996 disapproving the action of the Collector and holding that as the application was filed before the Act was deleted/amended, the Collector would continue to have jurisdiction in the matter and must decide accordingly. 7. Once again proceedings were referred before the Collector only to be dismissed again on the ground that the petitioners are not taking any interest in the matter, as apparently, the petitioners had not been present in the proceedings since 2004. In that very order it was also noticed on the day when the order was passed the petitioners were present and had sought time what has not been stated in the order is that on how many dates the Collector was himself available to hold the Court. 8. Be that as it may, the matter being before the Collector, the facts having brought on record, the case having been registered, the Collector should have dealt the matter on merit ex parte rather than dismissed it for non prosecution. 9. In that view of the matter I set aside the order of the Collector, Purnea, dated 8.9.2006 passed in Misc. Ceiling Case no. 69/1991-92 and direct the Collector to decide the matter after hearing the parties. The petitioners would appear with a copy of this order before the Collector of the district either personally or through their advocates within four weeks from today and on their so appearing and filing a copy of this order of this court the Collector would fix a date on which date the petitioners would be heard. The matter would then finally be decided hopefully within a period of three months from today. 10. This writ application is disposed of. 11. As previously on both occasions this court had ordered that the petitioners would not be dispossessed till final adjudication so the same should continue this time as well.