B.P.Jha, J.

1. In a writ application, these petitioners pray for quashing Annexures 4 and 5. Annexure 4 contains an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, and Annexure 5 contains an order passed by the Commissioner in revision.

2. The relevant facts are these:

On 19th December, 1925, Soney Lal Choudhary, Ras Bihari Choudhary, Sons of Gopal Choudhary, and Siaram Choudhary Son of Janak Lal Choudhary executed a usufructuary mortgage bond, which was registered on 2nd January, 1926, in favour of Sk. Bhikhari, with respect to 5 bighas 7 kathas 2 dhur of land, for a loan of Rs. 425/-. The heirs of Soney Lal Choudhary and Siaram Choudhary applied under Sec.12 of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 (Bihar Act XXII of 1975 hereinafter referred to as the Act), for recovery of possession of the mortgaged lands. The President gave assent to this Act on 20th March, 1975, and it came into force at once. By Annexure 4, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector directed the heirs of the mortgagee, the petitioners, to deliver possession of the mortgaged lands to the heirs of the mortgagors (respondents Nos 4 and 5). The petitioners preferred a revision application before the Commissioner under Sec. 46 of the Act. The commissioner, in revision, upheld the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. In other words, both the authorities concurrently directed the petitioners to deliver possession of the mortgaged lands to the heirs of the mortgagors. This writ application has been filed against the orders passed by the land Reforms Deputy Collector and the Commissioner under the provisions of the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 .

3. On these facts, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenges the validity of the impugned orders on the basis of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Ram Rup Kuer and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors., 1978 0 BBCJ 282. In that case the Division Bench has held that if a suit for redemption is barred by limitation then in that case an application under Sec.12 of the Act is not maintainable. The present case can easily be distinguished from the above Division Bench case. In the present case, the heirs of the mortgagors brought a title suit for redemption against the heirs of the mortgagee. The matter ultimately came to the High Court in second Appeal No. 994 of 1956. This Court by its judgment dated 8th May, 1959 (vide Annexure 1), was pleased to uphold the decree of redemption passed by the trial Judge in the title suit. After passing of the final decree by the High Court in second Appeal No. 994 of ] 956, the mortgagors decreebolders did not put the decree in execution as required by Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. According to Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, a decree is required to be put into execution within three years from the date of the final decree or order of the appellate Court. It is an admitted position in the present case that the decree was not at all put into execution by the mortgagors decree-holders.

4. When the Bihar Money Lenders Act, 1974 , came into force, the heirs of the mortgagors filed an application under Sec.12 of the Act for recovery of possession of the mortgaged lands. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of the case involved in the earlier Division Bench decision do not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case no suit for redemption was filed. Without filing a suit, the heir of the mortgagor had filed an application under Sec.12 of the Act. In that circumstance the Division Bench held that as the suit for redemption was barred by limitation, no application under Sec.12 of the Act was maintainable. Thus, I am of the opinion that the facts and circumstances of the present case are quite different and distinct from the facts and circumstance of the earlier Division Bench decision.

5. It is relevant at this stage to quote Sec.12 of the Act which runs as follows:

12. Usufructuary mortgages and their rede