S.N.Jha and T.P.Singh JJ.

1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, dated 10.6.93 in Case No. 23/93 upholding the claim of the land holders, respondents 2 to 7 herein, for additional four units under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act).

2. The short facts of the case are that a proceeding bearing Land Ceiling Case No. 2/1973-74 was initiated under the Act against respondents 3 to 7 which was disposed of by the Collector, Aurangabad on 21.12.83. The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya vide Ceiling Appeal No. 14/84 and not satisfied with the order dated 15.6.89 passed therein took the matter to the Board of Revenue in revision. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 20.8.91 remitted the matter back to the Collector for reconsideration on the point of majority of some of the respondents i.e. grant of additional units to them. The Collector on 25.9.92 rejected the claim of the respondents. On 9.10.92 notification was published under Section 15 of the Act. On the same day the surplus lands were distributed. The petitioner herein is one of the settlees. In the meantime respondents preferred appeal before the Divisional Commissioner which was rejected on 7.1.93. They again went to the Board of Revenue in Case No. 23/93. The Additional Member by the impugned order dated 10.6.93 upheld the respondents claim to the extent of four additional units, as indicated above, and directed the authorities to accordingly proceed with the case after allowing seven units to the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was not aware of the above said order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, until 10.5.2001 when notice was issued to him by the Circle Officer, Goh, as to why purcha issued in token of settlement be not cancelled. According to the petitioner, being settlee of the land to the extent of 0.62 acre, a right had accrued to him which stands violated by the above said order. He was necessary party to the proceeding and without notice the order could not be passed against him. In support of the contention reliance is placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Ram Swarup & Ors. vs. S.N. Maitas & Ors., 1999 (1) PLJR 52 (SC) : (1999) 1 SCC 738, in particular, the observation

"By such allotment and delivery of possession in their favour, rights have been conferred on such allottees and, therefore, any order without impleading them as parties could not have been passed which has the effect of taking away their rights."

4. The above observation prima facie would seem to support the case of the petitioner that being settlee of the land to the extent of 0.62 acre he should have been added as party in Revision Case no. 23/93 and that haying not been done, the impugned order passed behind his back should be held to be illegal. From perusal of the judgment however it would appear that the observations were made in a somewhat different context which we shall notice soon hereinafter. At this stage the case of the respondents may be noticed as under.

5. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that in terms of Section 15 of the Act acquisition of land is subject to the result of appeal or revision and therefore the order declaring the land settled with the petitioner among others, as surplus having been set aside by the superior authority the order no more exists and the settlement made as consequence of the order therefore must be treated as nullity. In support of the contention reliance is placed on a Bench decision of this Court in Dharnidhar Thakur vs. State of Bihar & ors., 1998 (3) BLJ 138: 1998 (1) PLJR 344 and AKhileshwar Mishra vs. State of Bihar and ors., AIR 1995 Patna 10 [1993 (2) PLJR 119]. In the instant case. publication was made within 14 days of the Collectors order and on the same day the alleged surplus lands were also di