JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by part of Annexure-3, which is a Notification under Section 15(1) of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") with regard to the surplus land of one Sri Rewati Kant Dubey. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that father of the petitioner, namely, late Bhuwan Ram Tripathi purchased Plots No. 23, 24, appertaining to Khata No. 36, Plot No. 129 of Khata No. 2 and Plot Nos. 108, 126, 135, 196, 122 of Khata No. 5, total area being 10.23 acres from one Bhumidutt Dubey, father of Rewati Kant Dubey. 3. The case of the petitioner is that immediately after the purchase his father came in possession and after mutation his name in the record of rights of the Government he started paying revenue to the State of Bihar regularly and in acknowledgement thereof rent receipts were being issued by the State. After the death of the father of the petitioner, an application was filed before the authority concerned for mutation of the name of his mother, Smt. Indu Tripathi, which was eventually allowed and her name was ordered to be mutated in the record of rights, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2. However, surprisingly the aforesaid land has been clubbed into the ands of Rewati Kant Dubey (son of the vendor, as aforesaid) and in 15(1) Notification under the Act, the lands of the petitioner has been shown to be acquired as surplus land. Further contention of the petitioner is that no notice was ever issued to him and as such he did not have prior knowledge of the ceiling proceedings. 4. Mr. Ajay, learned S.C.-III (Ceiling) appears and submits that a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating therein that though the sale deed was executed in the name of the father of the petitioner but he never came into possession. The jamabandi as well as issuance of rent receipts by the State of Bihar is neither proof of possession nor of title. It is also submitted that in verification report of the Circle Officer in the land ceiling case initiated against said Rewati Kant Dubey, the land-holder was found in possession of the land. 5. The jamabandi as well as issuance of rent receipts by the State of Bihar is neither proof of possession nor of title. It is also submitted that in verification report of the Circle Officer in the land ceiling case initiated against said Rewati Kant Dubey, the land-holder was found in possession of the land. 5. In view of the above in my considered opinion it was appropriate for the petitioner to approach the authority concerned under Section 45B for reopening the case so far it concerns the land upon which the petitioner is claiming but in place of taking such step he has directly approached this Court. 6. In view of aforesaid circumstances, this application is being disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file such an application raising all the grievances as stated in this application within sixty days from today. On filing of such application, the authority concerned shall examine and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, if possible, within six months from the date of filing of such an application. 7. It appears from the records of this case that on 4.4.2003 itself interim order was passed to the effect that the petitioner would not be forcibly dispossessed from the disputed land described in paragraph 1 of the writ application. In view of the above I further direct that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the disputed land till final order is passed by the competent authority on the application filed under Section 45A of the Act, if the same is filed within the time granted by this Court. 8. With the aforesaid observations this writ application stands disposed of.