I.A. 1280 of 2013 has been filed for condoning delay of approximately 36 days in filing of the Appeal.

2. Having heard Counsel for the parties and considered the explanation for the delay we condone the same in the interest of Justice and proceed to consider the Appeal on merits.

3. The present Appeal arises from order dated 4.10.2012 allowing C.W.J.C. No. 1695 of 2002. It sets aside the order dated 21.8.1999 passed by the Additional Collector, Araria, which allowed Miscellaneous case No. 1/1995- 96 filed by the Appellant. The Additional Collector had set aside the red card granted to Turai Mandal, for the lands in question, and simultaneously granted green card to the Appellants for the same. Turai Mandal was deceased during the pendency of the writ application and was substituted by his legal heirs, the respondent 2nd set.

4. Land Ceiling Case no. 43 of 1976–77 was initiated against one Maheshwara Nand Thakur. It is the case of the respondent 2nd set that after final publication of the lands to be acquired under Section 11 of the Bihar Land Reforms [fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land] Act, 1961 (hereinafter the preferred to has ‘the Act’) red card was issued to Turai Mandal as an under-raiyat, bearing number 85/1976 – 77. Parwana was also issued to him on 1.4.1976. Turai Mandal claimed continuous possession as occupancy raiyat. One Punyanand Goswami filed an application under Section 22(1) of the Act on 5.5.1995 before the Additional Collector to be declared an occupancy Raiyat, registered as Miscellaneous case No.1/1995–96. The Appellants are the legal heirs. The Additional Collector called for reports from the Anchal Adhikari and by order dated 21.8.1999 cancelled the red card issued to Turai Mandal and granted green card in favour of the Appellants.

The Learned Single Judge held that indisputably the lands which were the subject matter of the controversy were acquired in Land Ceiling case no. 43/76 – 77. The grant of a red card to Turai Mandal long years ago raised a presumption that it was done in accordance with law. Rule 25 framed under the Act required such application to be filed within 3 months from the date that the lands were declared surplus. The application by the appellants was submitted nearly two decades later. The Additional Collector could not have entertained it. The objection on behalf of the Appellants with regard to an alternative statutory remedy of Appeal available under Section 30 of the Act against order dated 21.8.1999 was rejected holding that in the facts and circumstances the Additional Collector exceeded jurisdiction. No reasons had been considered for extending the period of three months provided under Rule 25. If the order was ex-facie bad the jurisdiction under Article 226 was not barred on grounds of an alternative remedy.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants submitted no sooner that Punyanand Goswami came to know of the red card issued to Turai Mandal he moved the Additional Collector in the prescribed Form L C 19 under Section 22 [1] of the Act in his capacity of under-raiyat seeking to be declared as occupancy raiyat. Under Rule 25 such application was required to be made within three months from date the lands were declared surplus or such further period as may be allowed by the Collector. Since he was in possession, it could not be said that there had been unreasonable delay in preferring the same. The Additional Collector was satisfied to entertain it. The Anchal Adhikari reported on 28.9.1996 that the lands were in possession of the Appellants and red card holder Turai Mandal never came in possession. Two more reports by him were to the same effect. The Additional Collector by order dated 21.8.1999 after hearing and consideration of the report cancelled the red card granted Turai Mandal and gave green card for the lands to the Appellants. There is no material on record to suggest that any application was filed by Turai Mandal under Section 22 [1] of the