JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. All these writ applications arise out of Celling (Surplus) Case No. 22 of 1973-1974, which was inttiated against Mahanth Siya Ram Das of Bhuthari Anchal, Bachwara, in the district of Begusarai. The original landholder died during the pendency of the ceiling proceeding and his disciple (chhela) Mahanth Satya Narain Das, was substituted as landholder in the ceiling proceeding. Ceiling proceeding was initiated in respect of 176.899 acres of land situated in village Govindpur, Dadupur (Alipur), Rupaswai, Samastipur Bhith, Akbarpur and Churaman Chahk. Petitioners in all these writ applications are purchasers of lands either from different Mahanths or from the transferees in whose favour iands were transferred by one or another Mahanth in between 1956 to 1966. The lands which were so transferred much earlier to the initiation of ceiling proceeding have duly been mutated in the name of transferees. They are recorded as raiyats in the revisional survey records of rights and paying rent to the State. Common submission on behalf of the petitioners is that there was no proper enquiry under Section 55(1)(iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as, the Act) as the landholder did not file proper return disclosing transfer of several plots much earlier and which now belonged to others on account of transfers made long time back. These lands were also included in the ceiling proceeding, on account of non-disclosure and non-filing of return by the land holder. Such lands were also included in the ceiling proceeding which were raiyati lands of persons like the petitioners and others. However, when draft publication under Section 10 of the Act was made petitioners came to know about this fact that their lands have also been included in ceiling proceeding. They filed their objection under Section 10(3) of the Act which was duly considered by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. Orders were passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on different dates in the year 1987- 1988 and 1988-1989 accepting either entire transfers made in favour of the petitioners and in some cases part of transfers were considered as lawful made in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, directed to exclude transferred land from draft publication. 3. In C.W.J.C. Nc. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, directed to exclude transferred land from draft publication. 3. In C.W.J.C. Nc. 6151 of 2002 the claim of the petitioner is that he purchased land of different khata and plot numbers, measuring 4 bighas 8 kathas 15 dhurs situated in mauza Dadupur (Alipur) and the entire purchased land was exempted from the ceiling proceeding by order, dated 10.3.1987. Similarly, in C.W.J.C. No. 6184 of 2002 petitioner, Munni Sah @ Munilal Sah, had purchased land measuring 3 bighas 16 kathas 3 dhurs appertaining to khata no. 76, plot no. 465 and this was excluded entertaining his application under Section 10(3) of the Act, by the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, dated 10.8.1987. In C.W.J.C. No. 6390 of 2002 the petitioner had purchased through registered sale deed from Mahanth Siya Ram Das in village Dadupur (Alipur). The land appertaining to different khata and plot number measuring 2 bighas 14 kathas had been purchased. In his favour also order was passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on 10.3.1987 allowing objection under Section 10(3) of the Act and the land so purchased were excluded from the draft publication. In C.W.J.C. No. 2147 of 2002 petitioners had purchased land in the year 1963 from the transferee of Mahanth Ram Narain Das. The transferee had purchased land in the year 1943. The total area of land was 10 bighas 12 kathas 6 dhurs. The property so purchased was divided amongst co-sharers. Petitioners are in possession of the and allotted in their share in the family partition. The petitioners case is that the Ancha! Adhikari had submitted a report to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. on 10.7.1984 showing that with respect to these lands jamabandi has been created in favour of the petitioners and they are in possession of lands clubbed with the lands of landholders in ceiling proceeding. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, allowed their objection also on 10.8.1987. In spite of that in the gazette notification under Sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Act when their lands were shown as surplus of the landholder, they filed an objection under Section 47 of the Act on 9.9.2002, which was dismissed by the Additional Collector by order, dated 1.2.2002. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, allowed their objection also on 10.8.1987. In spite of that in the gazette notification under Sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Act when their lands were shown as surplus of the landholder, they filed an objection under Section 47 of the Act on 9.9.2002, which was dismissed by the Additional Collector by order, dated 1.2.2002. Prayer of the petitioners in this writ application is for quashing the order passed by the Additional Collector, dated 1.2.2002, the gazette notification under Section 11(1) of the Act as well as gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Act. Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 734 of 2004 is the legal heir of Lal Govind Rai. The grandfather of the petitioner, Lal Govind Rai and his brothers, Kapileshwar Rai and Raj Kishore Rai, had purchased this land on 5.4.1965. The lands measuring 0.38 acres (7 kathas 12 dhurs) appertaining to khata no. 2 plot no. 482, khata no. 920 plot no. 515 measuring 6 bighas 5 kathas 15 dhurs and 15 dhurki situated at village Daud Alipur, khata no. 889 plot no. 521 measuring 0.02 acre (10 dhurs) situated at village Govindpur under Bachawara Anchal in total 8 bighas 2 Kahtas 17dhurs 15 dhurkis were purchased. In the draft publication the lands measuring 3 bighas 2 kathas 17 dhurs 15 dhurkis were shown as surplus. Petitioner filed his objection under Section 10(3) of the Act which was allowed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, directing to exclude lands from draft publication by order, dated 18.7.1987. In spite of that when the land was included in the gazette notification under Section 11(1) of the Act. The petitioner filed his petition under Section 47 of the Act before the Collector, Begusarai, in Miscellaneous Case No. 62 of 1992 for necessary correction in the light of order, dated 18.7.1987. The miscellaneous case filed by the petitioner remained pending and without any correction in the gazette notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, publication of gazette under Section 15(1) of the Act was made on 27.1.2004 showing these lands as surplus of the landholder. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 999 of 2004 has purchased land from Mahanth Siya Ram Das. A registered sale deed have been executed in favour of Ram Bahadur Choudhary, on 16.12.1966 and subsequently Jamabandi No. 271 was created in the name of the petitioner and he is paying rent. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 999 of 2004 has purchased land from Mahanth Siya Ram Das. A registered sale deed have been executed in favour of Ram Bahadur Choudhary, on 16.12.1966 and subsequently Jamabandi No. 271 was created in the name of the petitioner and he is paying rent. The purchased land of the petitioner is situated at mauza Dadupur appertaining to khata no. 28 khesra no. 78 measuring 2 bighas 4 kathas 13 dhurs. This land was shown as surplus of land holder in the draft publication and objection under Section 10 (3) of the Act was filed which was allowed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, by order, dated 10.3.1989, directing to exclude the land from draft publication. The order of exemption passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, was ignored and in the gazette notification published under Section 11(1) of the Act out of total land 0.14 decimals were included in the lands shown as surplus. Petitioner filed an application under Section 47 for correction in the gazette notification under Section 11(1) of the Act. The objection was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 60 of 1992 by order, dated 15.4.1993. The Collector allowed correction in the gazette published under Section 11(1) of the Act, in spite of that the gazette notification was published under Section 15(1) of the Act with same lands error showing as surplus of the land holder. In C.W.J.C. No. 1369 of 2004 petitioner no. 2 and father of petitioner no. 1 had purchased land measuring 1 bigha 16 kathas and 18 dhurs appertaining to khata no. 28 plot. no. 47 of village Dadupur from Suga Kumari. Petitioners 1 and 2 had also purchased 19 kathas 7 dhurs of land of khata no. 108 khesra no. 39 from Mahanth Rampratap Das on 25.8.1956. The lands were duly mutated in the name of petitioners. However, in the draft publication these lands were included and shown as surplus of the landholder. The petitioners filed their objection on 20.1.1991 under Section 10(3) of the Act, but, it was rejected by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Appeal No. 52 of 1993 was preferred which was also dismissed by the Collector by order, dated 21.7.1998 on the ground of limitation. The petitioners filed their objection on 20.1.1991 under Section 10(3) of the Act, but, it was rejected by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Appeal No. 52 of 1993 was preferred which was also dismissed by the Collector by order, dated 21.7.1998 on the ground of limitation. The petitioners, thereafter, filed C.W.J.C. No. 6747 of 1998 which was disposed off with a direction to the petitioners to file their petition under Section 45B of the Act before the State within six weeks. Status quo was directed to be maintained so far distribution of the land is concerned. Petitioners filed their petition under Section 45B of the Act before the Collector, Begusarai, vide Appeal No. 52 of 1993, which is still pending. However, the lands have been declared surplus by publication of gazettes notification under Section 15(1) of the Act. 4. In C.W.J.C. No. 2350 of 2004 there are six petitioners and they have purchased different plots of land from the khatiyani raiyats. This land, which did not belong to the landholder, was also included in the ceiling proceeding and shown as surplus as landholder. Petitioner No. 1 filed his objection under Section 10(3) of the Act and it was allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, by order, dated 5.2.1988. So far other petitioners are concerned, they did not file their objection under Section 10(3) of the Act. For the first time, they have filed writ application before this Court challenging the publication of gazette notification under Sections 11(1) as well as 15(1) of the Act. 5. In C.W.J.C. No. 1228 of 2009 petitioners 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 had filed objection under Section 10(3) of the Act which was allowed and the land possessed by them were excluded from the ceiling proceeding. Petitioners 7, 8 and 12 had no knowledge about inclusion of their lands in the draft publication, as such, they never filed any objection. Petitioner No. 5 had filed his objection under Section 10(3) of the Act, but, it was rejected. All the petitioners have challenged the gazette notification under Sections 11(1) as well as 15(1) of the Act. 6. I.A. No. 5514 of 2007 has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 6184 of 2002, I.A. No. 3525 of 2007 has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 6390 of 2002, I.A. No. 5513 of 2007 has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 2350 of 2004 and LA. 6. I.A. No. 5514 of 2007 has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 6184 of 2002, I.A. No. 3525 of 2007 has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 6390 of 2002, I.A. No. 5513 of 2007 has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 2350 of 2004 and LA. No. 4532 of 2007 has been filed in C.W.J.C. No. 1228 of 2004. These interlocutory applications have been filed for substituting the legal heirs of sole petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 6184 of 2002 and C.W.J.C. No. 6390 of 2002 as well as petitioner no. 5 in C.W.J.C. No. 2350 of 2004 and petitioner no. 7 in C.W.J.C. No. 1228 of 2004. All interlocutory applications are allowed. Name of deceased petitioners are expunged and their legal heirs are substituted whose names are mentioned in the interlocutory applications. 7. The facts, as stated in all the writ applications, reveal that the Ceiling Case No. 22 of 1973-1974 was initially initiated against Mahanth Siya Ram Das as a consequence of Rent Fixation Case No. 122 of 1960-1961 filed by Mahanth Siya Ram Das in respect of 176.899 acres of land. Petitioners case is in the rent fixation case khatiyani lands of several persons were included by the landholder in order to claim more compensation. In this proceeding lands transferred by different persons, in favour of lawful purchasers including the petitioners, in between 1956 to 1966 were included. Petitioners when came to know about the draft publication filed their objections under Section 10(3) of the Act which was allowed irrespective of that in the gazette notifications under Sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Act the land already exempted were shown as surplus of the landholder. The petitioners moved before this Court by filing different writ applications challenging gazette notification under Section 11(1) of the Act. In almost all the cases status quo order was passed in the year 2002, except C.W.J.Cs. No. 999. 734, 1369 and 1228 of 2004. Even though the status quo order was passed with respect to lands of the petitioners which were already exempted from the ceiling proceeding, a gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published on 27.1,2004. In almost all the cases status quo order was passed in the year 2002, except C.W.J.Cs. No. 999. 734, 1369 and 1228 of 2004. Even though the status quo order was passed with respect to lands of the petitioners which were already exempted from the ceiling proceeding, a gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published on 27.1,2004. Some of the petitioners had already filed their application under Section 47 of the Act for correction in the gazette notification under Section 11(1) of the Act which remained pending and during the pendency of proceeding under Section 47 of the Act final gazette under Section 15(1) of the Act was published, in which the error which was there under Section 11(1) of the Act continued. In violation of the statutory provision of 30 days for filing revision against final publication, under Section 32 of the Act, Parchas were issued in favour of the landless persons with respect to land so declared surplus. 8. From the counter affidavit and the reply to the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners, it transpires that some of the parchas were issued before the publication of gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Act. The parchas were issued on 24.1.2004 itself where gazette under Section 15(1) was published on 27.1.2004. However, the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6181 of 2002 has brought on record the report of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, dated 15.11.2003 (Annexure-11 to the reply to the counter affidavit) in order to show that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, has admitted that notification under Section 11(1) was published without considering relevant records and ignoring the orders passed by the competent authority with respect to the land which has been declared surplus. The petitioner has also brought on record a report of the Anchal Adhikari in order to show that the parchas issued by the authorities with respect to the lands declared surplus has no relevance for the reason that possession of land were never given to the parcha holders. The claim of the parcha holders that they have either been dispossessed or crops cultivated on the land have forcibly been harvested by the landholders is incorrect. 9. All these facts only show that illegality is apparent on the face of the record. The claim of the parcha holders that they have either been dispossessed or crops cultivated on the land have forcibly been harvested by the landholders is incorrect. 9. All these facts only show that illegality is apparent on the face of the record. Gazette notification under Section 11(1) of the Act published in the year 1992 and final publication of gazette under Section 15(1) of the Act, dated 27.1.2004 are, thus, illegal as published in violation of statutory provisions as well as in total disregard of the orders passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, under Section 10(3) of the Act exempting lands of the petitioner from the ceiling proceeding. 10. Parcha holders have also approached this Court by filing intervention applications (I.A. No. 4425 of 2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 6181 of 2002 and I.A. No. 4663 of 2007 in C.W.J.C. No. 734 of 2004) for impleading them as party respondents. Considering the facts, stated above, I do not feel that the parcha holders have any locus standi to intervene in the matter and to implead them as party respondents in the respective writ applications. The intervention applications are, thus, rejected. 11. However, the gazette under Sections 11(1) as well as 15(1) of the Act and also the orders passed by the Additional Collector or the Collector, Begusarai, rejecting objections of the petitioners under Section 47 of the Act regarding inclusion of their lands in the gazette, are quashed. All these matters are remitted back to the Additional Collector, Begusarai, for reconsideration of entire material on record. Different orders passed in the case of the writ petitioners by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, exempting their lands from the ceiling proceeding should be considered, if any objection is filed under Section 10(3) of the Act by persons whose lands have illegally been included in the ceiling proceeding, should also be considered. Considering all these facts only, orders be passed within five months from the date of production/communication of the order. Only when orders are passed, there should be publication of gazette under Sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Act. Till publication of gazette under Section 15(1) of the Act there should not be dispossession of petitioners from any land on the basis of.the earlier orders passed in Ceiling Case No. 22 of 1973-1974. 12. With these observations and directions, these applications are allowed.