- (1.) This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 seeking permission to challenge order dated 10.01.2006. The learned counsel for the respondentState of Jharkhand does not dispute that order dated 10.01.2006 is in continuation of notice dated 04.02.2003 issued to the petitioners by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. Considering the fact that the foundational facts have been pleaded in the writ petition, I.A. No.1638 of 2012 stands allowed. W.P.(C) No. 3342 of 2004 The learned counsel for the respondentState of Jharkhand raises a preliminary objection and submits that against order dated 10.01.2006, the petitioners have statutory remedy in appeal and therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that insofar as, the petitioner no. 3 is concerned, the present writ petition is premature and infact, final order pursuant to notice dated 04.02.2003 has yet not been passed.
(2.) Considering the facts brought on record, I am of the opinion that notice dated 04.02.2003 cannot be interfered with on the ground of absence of jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms. It is not in dispute that after notice dated 04.02.2003 was issued, the petitioners appeared before the authorities. Proviso to Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 provides that against order passed by the Collector, an appeal would lie before the Commissioner. Rule 4B of the Bihar Land Reforms Rules, 1951 also provides that an appeal from the order of the Collector would lie before the Commissioner of the Division.
(3.) Considering the availability of the statutory remedy to the petitioner nos. 1 & 2, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to them to prefer appeal as provided under Bihar Land Reforms Act. Insofar as, petitioner no. 3 is concerned, the present writ petition is held premature. However, order passed in the writ petition would not prejudice the case of the petitioners.;