JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the notification under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) published on 21.09.1998 by which 20.35 decimals of Class I lands of the petitioners has wrongly been declared surplus by treating the lands to belong to Upendra Prasad Yadav. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the ancestor of the petitioners purchased the lands in the year 1906. After the purchase of the lands, the name of Upendra Prasad Yadav was entered in the revisional survey. The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 13 of 1961 before the Subordinate Judge, Purnea for correction of the entry in the revisional survey. The suit was decreed by a compromise decree in which the defendant Upendra Prasad Yadav accepted the fact that the lands as described in the compromise decree did not belong to him and the petitioner was entitled for the khas possession of the lands. 3. A ceiling proceeding was initiated with respect to the lands of Purnea, Katihar and Saharsa way back in the year 1980-81. Since the name of Upendra Prasad Yadav was recorded in the revisional survey, notices were issued to him, but Upendra Prasad Yadav did not appear in the ceiling proceeding till declaration under Section 15 of the Act. Thereafter, Upendra Prasad Yadav filed CWJC 2228 of 1981. The order is contained in Annexure-3. In the said writ application, it was admitted on behalf of the petitioner that he did not have the possession over the lands in the district of Katihar, which is incorporated in the order as well. This Court granted leave to Upendra Prasad Yadav to file his option under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they have valid title over the lands which have been declared surplus by a decree of the Court, moreover the person i.e. Upendra Prasad Yadav, whose name was entered into the revisional survey has admitted before the High Court that he had no title or possession over the lands of the petitioners and as such the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act should be quashed. 5. 5. The petitioners have moved this Court after a delay but the fact cannot be denied that the person who was noticed in the ceiling proceeding was not the land holder. 6. In the strange and peculiar facts of this case, I grant leave to the petitioners to file an application before the State Government under Section 45B of the Act. Perhaps, it may not be possible to undo the entire proceedings at this late stage, however, the State Government can consider whether the petitioners should be granted leave to file his options under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act as far as his lands are concerned after appropriate enquiry into the matter. 7. The application under Section 45B of the Act should preferably be disposed of within a period of six months from the date of its filing. 8. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.