TAPEN SEN, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE writ petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.4.1994 passed by the S.D.O. -cum -Collector, Latehar (respondent No. 5) wherein while referring to the provisions of Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to wherever necessary as the said Act), he observed that 119.93 1/24 acres of land, which was found to be in excess, should be acquired and accordingly directed the records to be sent down to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau for doing needful. According to the petitioners, the entire proceedings starting from 28.4.1981 are wholly without jurisdiction and consequently they also pray that the said proceedings starting from that day and ending on 11.4.1994 (i.e. Annexure 3) be quashed. The case of the parties is that Chaudhary Lakshmi Singh was recorded as a land holder in respect of land situated in village Darha Gari and Rud, P.S. Balumath, District Palamau. The said Lakshmi Singh died in the year 1934 leaving behind him his legal heirs and the petitioners claim that they are his heirs. From perusal of Annexure 1, it appears that admittedly a proceeding under the provisions of the said Act was initiated being L.C. Case No. 12/117 of 73 - 74 in which 21 acres of land were declared to be surplus. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 filed L.C. Appeal No. XV/166 of 1976 and the respondent No. 3 (Additional Collector) after hearing the parties remanded the matter where after upon such remand, the respondent No. 5 (Additional S.D.O. Latehar) [described in the cause title as Sub -Divisional Officer - cum -Collector under the Land Ceiling Act at Latehar] passed an order on 5.8.1977 (Annexure -1) holding that there was no surplus land and accordingly he dropped the proceedings. At paragraph 10, the petitioners have specifically stated that neither any appeal nor revision had been filed by the State against the order dated 5.8.1977 and therefore it became final. In reply to the aforesaid, all that the respondents have stated is at paragraph 20 of the Counter Affidavit and which reads as follows : - - "20. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the writ application, I say and submit that the case was reopened under Section 45(B) of the Act by respondent No. 2 on 28.4.1981." Thus, the factum relating to reopening of the proceeding dated 28.4.1981 is admitted in the Counter affidavit of the respondent No. 4 and the statement that the State did not file any appeal or revision has not even been replied to.
(3.) THE grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners therefore is that neither any appeal nor revision having been filed by the State against the order dated 5.8.1977, the same became final and all of a sudden in the year 1981, the proceedings could not have been re -opened. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Annexure 3 and submits that the order dated 28.4.1981, (i.e. the order by which the proceedings were re -opened) suffers from a complete non -application of mind.;