BRIJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the purcha holders (respondent Nos. 5 to 37).

(2.) ON behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that Section 9(1) of the Act gives to the family concerned an option to select lands which it may desire to retain but such option has been made subject to provisions of Sub -section (2), (3) and (4) and of other provisions of the Act. Sub -section (2) of the Section 9 provides that where the land held by the land holder includes land transferred by him in accordance with or in contravention of Clause (ii) of Sub -section (1) of Section 5, the land so transferred in accordance with or in contravention of aforesaid Clause (ii) of Sub -section (1) of Section 5, shall to the extent of the ceiling area admissible to the land holder, be deemed to have been selected by him for retention within the ceiling area and if such land is less than the ceiling area admissible to him, the land holders shall select the balance of ceiling area from his remaining land.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the state has submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the competent authority did not permit reopening of the ceiling case on account of his subjective satisfaction that no case was made out for reopening and hence such order requires no interference. Learned Counsel for the purcha holders has submitted that since purchas have been issued, the purcha holders are likely to be affected on account of reopening of the ceiling case.