Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 28.3.2000 (Annexure -4), passed by the respondent No. 3 in L.C. Case No. 20/1973 -74, whereby the lands have been allotted to the petitioners without keeping in view the option exercised by the petitioners in accordance with Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'] and without considering the objection against the draft statement filed under Section 10(3) of the said Act and also without taking into consideration the order dated 16.2.1996 passed by the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2865/1995(R). The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the consequential order dated 19.5.2000 (Annexure -5) directing for publication of the final draft statement under Section 11(1) of the said Act and the final draft statement published on 19.5.2000 (Annexure -6).
(2.) IT has been stated that earlier without publishing the draft statement under Section 10 of the said Act, the Additional Collector, Garhwa had directed for final publication of the draft statement under Section 11(1) of the said Act. The petitioners were thereby deprived of their right to file objection under Sub -section 3 of Section 10 of the said Act. Aggrieved by the said final publication of the draft statement under Section 11(1) of the said Act, the petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 2865/1995(R) before the then Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court. After hearing the parties, the said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 16.2.1996 directing the Additional Collector to publish the draft statement under Section 10 of the said Act giving opportunity to the petitioners to exercise their option in accordance with law. After the matter was remitted to the Additional Collector, the petitioners had exercised their option, but the same was not considered and draft statement under Section 10 of the said Act was published, which also followed publication of final draft statement under Section 11(1) of the said Act. It has been submitted that though the Collector is the prescribed authority under the law, the Additional Collector, who exercised the power of Collector, did not apply his mind and passed the impugned orders on the advice of the Government Pleader. The impugned orders of the Additional Collector are wholly arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the direction of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2865/1995(R) and are liable to be quashed.
(3.) THE respondents have opposed the writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, stated that after the matter was remitted, the petitioners were asked to exercise their option by Letter No. 636 dated 2.12.1998, sent through the registered post dated 7.12.1998, but the petitioners did not submit their option, though sufficient opportunity was given to them. In that situation, the respondents sought legal advice from the Government Pleader and in accordance with his advice, they proceeded further and passed the order dated 8.6.1999 under Section 10(1) of the said Act. Thereafter, the draft statement was published and final draft statement was also published under Section 11(1) of the said Act. It has been submitted that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned orders and the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.;