KAUSHALYA KUAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for the petitioners, and Mr. S. A. Alam, learned S. C. (Ceiling). This writ petition is directed against the notification bearing S. O. No. 1434/Ra. dated 14.6.02 (Annexure -1), whereby the excess lands of the petitioners have been notified under the provisions of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. According to the writ petition, the petitioners ' appeal was disposed of on 13.6.2002, and the impugned notification has been issued on 14.6.2002. Excess lands have been distributed and Parchas issued. In the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this is in blatant violation of the provisions of section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961, whereby it is mandatory for the authorities under the Act to wait for the result of the ' appeal or the revision. He further submits that the authorities under the Act are trying to create an irreversible situation for the petitioners which would render the revision application infructuous. Learned S.C. opposes the writ petition on the ground of maintainability. In his submission, the petitioners ought to have exhausted the statutory remedy of revision before approaching this court in writ jurisdiction.

(2.) A number of similar writ petitions are coming up before this court where such hasty action is being alleged. It goes without saying that the procedure established by law must be meticulously followed. Another grievance made before this court in diverse writ petitions is that the statutory authorities take a lot of time in taking up the matter on the first occasion after the same is filed, the date on which the petitioners could pray before the statutory authorities including the Board of Revenue for interim reliefs, otherwise the appeal or the revision may be rendered infructuous. Law is well settled that once a matter has been admitted for hearing it becomes the duty of the court to preserve the subject matter of the litigation by an appropriate order so that it is available at the time of final adjudication and the decree does not become a barren one. It appears to me that on account of such delayed listing of the matter on the first occasion, the petitioners are deprived of the opportunity to make prayer for interim orders quite often to the prejudice of the petitioner. It is in this background that I permit the petitioners to withdraw this writ petition to enable them to avail the statutory remedy under section 32 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act which shall be taken up for admission and prayer for interim relief considered in accordance with law. This Court will be pleased if all such matters are listed before the Board of Revenue within two days of their filing with defects, if any.