Partha Sarthy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant application has been filed for the following relief(s):—

“1. That the present writ application is being filed in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside the notice bearing memo no. 1359 dated 05.07.2019 issued under Section 4(h) under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 bearing case no. 01/2019 with regard to the property situated in Mauja Salaiya, Thana No. 89 Khata No. 52, Plot No. 1156, area 61.85 acre, Khata No. 53, Plot No. 1155, area 100.60 acre, Mauja Suarkol, Thana 88, Khata No. 76, Plot No. 804, area 31.50 acre marked as Gairmajarua (Annexure-P/11); on the ground that the said notice is without making the appropriate enquiry pertaining to the land before claiming to be a public land, without clarifying the actual state of affair, without verifying the nature of the land in question etc., without issuance of public notice, without issuance of notice under Rule-4 Form B-1 of the Bihar Land Reforms Rule, 1951 which itself vitiates the entire proceeding;

For any other relief/ reliefs for which the petitioner is entitled for;”

3. The case of the petitioners in brief is that Arun Kumar Goenka (petitioner no.1) and Late Onkarnath Goenka, father of petitioner no.2 are full brothers. Onkarnath Goenka died in the year 2016 leaving behind his two sons ie the petitioner no.2 and Vinay Kumar Goenka.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that in the Khatiyan prepared on 13.12.1908, the land in question was recorded as gairmazarua. The petitioners got Bandobasti from the actual landlord i.e. Khaira estate and Parwana Bandobasti dated 19.6.1949 was issued in favour of their family members. They have right, title and possession on the property. The Khaira estate also gave list and details of the land and the land in question was shown to be gair mazarua malik. Subsequently, the nature of the land changed completely and on the basis of the Parwana Bandobasti, the petitioners started to pay rent to the State Government and were granted rent receipts.

5. As per the petitioners, the description of the land is as follows:—

i. In Mauza-Suarkol, khata no.76, plot no. 804/5, area 6.50 acres and khata no.77, plot no.711 and 818, area 22.05 acres and 22.55 acres.

ii. In Mauza-Salaiya, in khata no. 53, plot no.1152/4, area 17.35 acres; in khata no.53, plot no.1153, area 2.38 acres; in khata no.52, plot no. 1151, area 1.41 acres; in khata no.52, plot no.1152, area 1.84 acres; in khata no.52, plot no.1156, area 2.47 acres and 24.45 acres. Total area being 44.25 acres.

6. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 has been paying rent and rent receipt has been issued for 24.45 acres of land in khata no.53. Further his full brother, father of the petitioner no.2 has also been paying rent for khata nos.76 and 77 measuring a total area of 28.45 acres and rent receipt is being issued to him. The Circle Officer has also issued land possession certificate with respect to different properties.

7. Sri Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the respondent authorities having proceeded to construct a road in Mauza- Salaiya as also in Mauza-Suarkol in the property existing in the name of the petitioners, a representation was filed by the petitioners. On getting no response, the petitioners filed C.W.J.C no. 10851 of 2018 in the Patna High Court wherein by order dated 23.7.2018, the respondents were granted time to file counter affidavit specifically stating as to whether the road is being constructed over the land of the petitioners or not. Learned counsel submits that although the Register-II for Mauza-Suarkol is missing, he has brought on record the copy of Register-II for Mauza-Salaiya to show that the land in question was mutated in favour of the petitioner no.1 on the basis of return. The copies of the Register-II, rent receipts and the application filed in the year 2006 together with the report given by the Circle Officer clearly dem