Judgment delivered by B.L. Yadav.

What is the scope of enquiry by the State Government or the Collector in an application under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fxation of Ceiling Area land Acquisition of Surplus land) Act. 1961, (for short the Act) and what does expression if it thinks fit under Section 45B of the Act, cannot and when can this court grant interim stay in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the interim stay is in respect of the land for which proceedings are pending at the initiative of the vendees under Section 45B of the Act are the short questions for determination in this writ petition filed by the vendees, the petitioners, seeking the relief for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing respondent no.2 Collector. Purnia to dispose of the application of the petitioners under Section 45B of the Act. and to exclude the plots of land purchased by the petitioners by the sale deeds dated 23rd June, 1973 8th Sept. 1979 4th April, 19763 and 22nd of June 1973 from the operation of the ceiling proceedings and not to dispossess the petitioners from the plots in dispute till their application before the collector of the state Government under Section 45B of the Act is disposed of.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the proceedings under the said Act were initiated and Ashok Kumar Mandal, Kaushik Mandal and Gautam Mandal including their father and land holder filed objection under Section 10(2) of the said Act with the avernment that their plots including land in dispute need not declared surplus in as much as they did not hold in excess of the ceiling area, as indicated under Section 4 of the Act. The land holders led evidence to prove their case but ultimately it was held that the land holders had surplus land to the extent of 281 acres and odd as it is clear from the notification under section 15(1) of the Act published on 7.10.1993 (Vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition). As the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act were pending, the sale deeds in favour of the petitioner (Vide ann. 1) were executed as is obvious from the date of the sale deeds, prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 15 of the Act.

3. The petitioner have now filed an application under Section 45B of the Act before the State Government or the Collector indicating that they are vendees under the different sale deeds and had no opportunity to contest the proceedings which were in progress under Section 10(2) of the Act. The prayer before the Collector is that the proceedings which had been concluded and in respect of which the notification under Section 15 of the Act had been issued be reopened and they be afforded an opportunity to contest the matter, as after the sale deeds in their favour they stepped in the shoes of the land holders. These proceedings are still pending and have not been decided one way of the other. During the pendency of those proceeding they have filed the present petition before this Court under Art, 226 of the constitution, seeking relief as indicated above in paragraph 1 of the writ petition to the effect that the collector be directed by a writ of mandamus to dispose of their application in respect of their claim under Sec. 45B of the Act. by re-opening the matter and the land purchased by them be declared to be exempted from ceiling proceeding and further by an ad interim mandamus respondents by directed not to dispossess them from the land purchased by them, during the pendency of the proceeding.

4. Mr. Arun Prasad Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had not been afforded any opportunity to contest the proceedings under Section 10(2) of the Act. Hence they be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the collector be directed to allow the application under Sec. 45B of the Act by re opening the matter proceedings which have been concluded in pursuance of the said notification under Section 15 of the Act dated