Binod Kumar Roy, J.

1. The petitioners have come up to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the part of the order, dated 9-2-1982, as contained in Annexure-2 passed by the Collector, Samstipur in a case described and numbered as Suit No. L. C. 48/81-82 (Sri Bishundeo Mahto V/s. State) by which the petition tiled by petitioner No., 1 under Sec. 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereafter referred to as thee Act) has been rejected.

2. This writ application was filed on 5th March, 1982 and it was admitted on 17th March, 1982 directing maintenance of the status quo.

3. A petition filed by four persons praying therein to add them as petitioners on the ground that they are also co-sharers of the land in question has already been allowed by a separate order and they were directed to be made petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 to this writ application.

4. The petitioners claim title to and possession over 87 decimals of land in survey plot Nos. 80 and 130, appertaining to Khata No. 140, of village Khursanda Police Station Hasanpur, District Samastipur. Their case is that Khata No. 140 was recorded in the names of Soman Mahto and Kallar Mahto. Soman Mohto transferred his entire interest by a deed of gift dated 15-4-1920 to Madhu Mahto son of Tulsi Mahto and put him in possession. Kallar Mahto died leaving behind his son Bilat Mahto. Bilat Mahto also died leaving behind a daughter Dhan Sukhia Devi. Madhu Mahto had two sons Jharulla Mahto and Kari Mahto. Petitioner No. 1 is son of Kari Mahto whereas petitioners 2 to 5 are sons of Jhamlla Mahto. Dhan Sukhia Devi transferred her share to the respective mothers of the petitioners. They also pay rent to the State of Bihar. There was a fire in their house and some of their papers were also burnt. They were also granted parcha. Even though the lands belong to them, they learnt through the Anchal Office that their lands were acquired by the State of Bihar in a surplus proceeding in Land Ceiling Case No. 8/73-74 initiated under the Act as belonging to Respondent No. 4 Sheonandan Prasad Singh. A notification under Sec. 15(1) of the Act was also published. Having come to know, the petitioner No. 1 filed an application under Section 45-B of the Act (Annexure-l) before the Collector, Samastipur and prayed to delete the lands in question. The petitioner No. 1, to support his claim, also filed Khatiyan, deed of gift, rent receipts and some other documents. Respondent No. 2 however rejected the application vide his order (Annexure-2) on erroneous grounds namely (i) no document like Khatiyan or receipt has been produced (ii) the objector should have filed a complete objection (iii) there is no provision in the Act that the authority will give an opportunity to the objector to rectify mistakes in the petition (iv) the regional land holder Sheonandan Prasad Singh had failed to give any information under Sec. 7 of the Act or shown any reaction to the draft publication under Sec. 10 of the Act rather he filed certain objection only at the stage of preparation of the final statement under Sec. 11 of the Act (v) no objection was filed by the objector earlier under Sec. 15(3) of the Act.

5. Mr. Ram Kumar Jha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits as follows:

(i) Respondent No. 2 has committed an error of record in observing that no document has been filed by the petitioner No. 1 to support his claim, whereas a number of documents filed by him were already on the record.

(ii) The other reasons given by Respondent No. 2 are also not sustainable in law.

(iii) The original authority was not correct in deciding the proceeding on Land Ceiling Case No. 8 of 1973-74 without issuing any notice to the petitioners under Sec. 10(3) of the Act and thus any declaration made in relation to their land as well as the notification under Sec. 15(1) of the Act ultra vires Sec. 10(3) of the Act as