Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.

This writ application has come up for a fresh consideration by virtue of the order dated March 28, 2017 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 4726/2017 (arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 3821/2015 [State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Maheshwar Mandal and Ors. Vs.]).

2. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it appears that while challenging the judgment dated 24.06.2014 passed by the then Hon'ble Division Bench in this case an impression was given to the Hon'ble Apex Court that in the writ petition before this court, there was no challenge to the vires of any of the provisions of the Bihar Land Disputes Resolution Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2009") and only in course of hearing of the writ petition, arguments were advanced questioning the validity of the provisions of the Act, 2009 and the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court had decided the validity of certain provisions of the Act, 2009 and declared them to be unconstitutional, without there being any pleadings to that effect.

3. We are constrained to record that apparently a wrong submission was made before the Hon'ble Apex Court and what was a matter of record before this court in I.A. No. 8999/2013 which was allowed vide order dated 20.12.2013 passed by this court were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Apex Court. We record the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by the learned writ court while allowing I.A. No. 8999/2013 as under: -

"The interlocutory application has been filed for amendment in the prayer made in the main writ application so as to add relief Nos. (iii) and (iv) for declaring the entire enactment being Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 being in excess of power and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and various other Central enactments as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and ultra vires and for consequential relief.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for amendment is allowed. I.A. No.8999 of 2013 is, accordingly, disposed of.

In view of the fact that the vires of the Act has been challenged, let the matter go out of my list and be placed before a Division Bench of this Court after obtaining the orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice."

4. Learned counsel representing the writ petitioners has given much emphasis on this aspect of the matter that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was not duly informed about the pleadings and it seems to be a case of misleading the court by suppressing the records. prima facie the submissions seems to be correct but we are not willing to detain ourselves on this issue when we find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has recorded in its order to the effect that what was submitted before the Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above was not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the parties. We therefore find that even the respondents did not point out the aforementioned facts to the Hon'ble Apex Court and because both the parties could not assist the Hon'ble Apex Court properly, the judgment of this court was set aside on the solitary ground that the validity of the Act was challenged by way of oral submissions and this court has declared it unconstitutional without there being any basis. Brief facts

5. Be that as it may, as the judgment of this court has already been set aside, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.A.G.-IV on behalf of the State assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, A.C. to A.A.G.-IV and learned counsel representing respondent no. 4. It appears that initially the writ application was filed for the following relief’s:

(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.12.2011 passed by the respondent no.3 as contained in Annexure-4 and the appellate order dated 08.08.2012 passed by the respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure-5 as well as the notices dated 22.11.2012 and 31.12.2012, being the follow of action as contained in Annexure-6 series, be issued.

(ii) An