S.K.KATRIAR and KISHORE K.MANDAL JJ.

1. Letters Patent Appeal No.1336 of 1998 in terms of Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been preferred by 23 persons, who were respondent nos. 4 to 23 in CWJC. No.2208 of 1989. They are aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.11.1998, whereby the writ petition was allowed, the appellate and the revisional orders passed under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reform (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") have been set aside, and the writ petitioners (land holders) have been allowed three units instead of two units leaving no surplus land.

2. The appellants are the settlees of the lands which had been, during the earlier stage of the proceedings, declared surplus by the authorities under the Act and are now faced with the prospect of being displaced in view of the judgment. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the Collector of the district may try to accommodate the Red Card Holders (the appellants herein) by settling them over some other lands. Consequently, the Collector of the district has passed the order dated 16.8.1999, in Miscellaneous (Land Ceiling) Case no.57 of 1998-99, whereby he has cancelled the Red Cards issued in favour of the appellants herein and has observed that, in view of the grant of three units to the land-holders, no surplus land has been left and their case for settlement shall be considered after disposal of the aforesaid LPA. No.1336 of 1998. The said order dated 16.8.1999 was challenged in CWJC. No.8793 of 1999, which has been dismissed by judgment dated 5.5.2000, giving rise to the analogous LPA. No.925 of 2000.

3. We shall first take up LPA. No.1336 of 1998. Ramayan Ojha was the land-holder and the proceedings under the Act was started to determine his ceiling area. Certain units were given to him which need not be dilated because, after the final orders had been passed, the State government took steps to re-start the proceedings in terms of Section 32A & 32B of the Act. After reopening, the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) granted one unit to Ramayan Ojha and his minor children, and one unit each to his two major sons, namely, Harihar Ojha and Suryavansh Ojha. Aggrieved by this order, the State government preferred appeal which was allowed by order dated 15.7.1988 (Annexure -2), whereby the unit granted to Suryavansh Ojha was recalled on the ground that he was minor on the appointed day. The land-holders preferred revision application before the Board of Revenue which was rejected on the ground of delay, by order dated 10.1.1989 (Annexure -3), leading to the present CWJC. No.2208 of 1989. On a consideration of the entire materials, the writ petition was allowed, wherein it has been held that Suryavansh Ojha was a major on the appointed date and was, therefore, entitled to one unit leaving no surplus land. In other words, the family has been allowed three units.

4. It is relevant to state that Ramayan Ojha died during the pendency of the writ proceedings and was substituted by his heirs.

5. While the proceedings under the Act were still making head-way, and before the notification under Sec. 15(1) of the Act was issued, the respondent authorities distributed the surplus land in favour of the present appellants and issued Red Cards to them. While allowing the writ petition (CWJC. No.2208/1989), the learned writ court made the following observation in paragraph -

11. of the judgment: "Accordingly, I set aside the appellate order dated 15th July, 1988 and the revisional order dated 10th January, 1989, as contained in Annexures - 2 & 3.

The case is remitted to the Collector of the district to take a decision relating to Red Card holders who, in the meantime, have been provided with Red Cards. If, on the facts and in the circumstances, a denotification of land is required to be issued in view of individual unit allowed in fa