ADHIK LAL RAI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

RAM SWARATH RAI @ RAM SOGARATH RAI, SON OF SRI BAUWAN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HARNAHI, P.S. KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The District Collector, Darbhanga 3. The Additional Collector, (Land Ceiling), Darbhanga 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Kusheshwar Asthan, P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga

5. Chandrashekhar Singh, son of Late Modeshwar Singh, resident of Mohalla-Katahal Bari, P.S. Darbhanga (L.N.M.U.) District-Darbhanga

6. Lakhan Sada, son of Late Dhaneshwar Sada 7. Fuchai Sada, son of Late Dahaur Sada 8. Anup Sada, son of Late Darso Sada 9. Beli Sada, son of Late Akkal Sada All respondents Nos. 6 to 9 are residents of village-Harnahi, P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, District-Darbhanga ……………. Respondents. For the Petitioners: (1) Mr. Birendra Prasad Verma, Sr Advocate - 2 - (2) Mr. Mrityunjaya Kumar Gautam (3) Mr. Yogendra Kumar (4) Mr. R.N. Ray, For the state: (1) Mr. R.C. Thakur (S.C.4) Ceiling (2) Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, J.C. to S.C.-IV, Ceiling (3) Mr. K. Thakur, J.C. to S.C.-IV, Ceiling. -----------

06.05.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the state. Notices were issued to private respondents who are land holder and the settle of the surplus land. Notices were duly served upon the private respondents but they did not opt to appear. Petitioners in both the writ applications have come before this court for quashing of the order dated 07.03.2002 passed in Miscellaneous Revenue Case No. 36/93-94 & 39/93-

94. The District Collector, Darbhanga by order dated

07.03.2002 has dismissed the application filed by petitioners under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling, Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 for reopening of Land Ceiling Case No. 371 of 80-81/ 4/84-85. Petitioners had filed their application for re-opening of the Ceiling Case for the reason that their lands were declared surplus of the land holder in the Ceiling Proceeding and acquired for distribution by publication of gazette Notification dated 01.11.1984 in the district under Section 15(1) of the Act. By this Notification, 96 acres 29 decimals lands were acquired for distribution among the landless persons. - 3 - Petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8779/02 have given details of their land in paragraphs 5 to 13 of the writ application and petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 8815/02 have given details of lands in paragraphs-4 & 5 of the writ application. Petitioners’ case is that these lands were purchased by their ancestors through sale deeds from recorded tenants and some lands were acquired by way of settlement from the ex-intermediary through valid documents prior to 22.10.59. Some of the lands were purchased in the year, 1990 from the recorded tenants in whose name, Jamabandi was running and who had no connection with the Ceiling Proceeding. Chandrashekhar Singh against whom Ceiling Proceeding was initiated, was not raiyat of petitioners’ land and land in question belonged to their vendors who were stranger the Ceiling Proceeding. Petitioners’ case is that at no point of time, either they or their vendor/settler were given any notice to show cause. There was no enquiry u/S 5(i)(iii) of the ‘Act’ and due to this lacuna, a wrong verification report was submitted showing petitioners’ land as lands of the land holder. Finally, the draft statement was prepared u/S 10(1) of the Act on 18.6.1984 whereby out of 126 acres 29 decimals of land under the Ceiling Proceeding, one unit was allotted to the land holder and rest 96 acres 29 decimals were shown as surplus. As per the statement made in the writ applications, land holder Chandrashekhar Singh did not file any return. He did not file any objection u/S 10(3) against - 4 - the draft statement. The final publication of gazette u/S 11(1) was made on 27.01.1984 but it was also not served on the land holder as he was not available. Since gazette u/S 11(1) was not served to the land holder, naturally no appeal was preferred by him. Thereafter, on 01.16.8.84, gazette Notification u/S 15(1) was published. Petitioners, for the first time came to know about all those developments in the year, 1993-94. They came to know about the Ceiling Proceeding and acquisition of land as surplus of the land holder. Thereafter, they filed Miscellaneous Case No. 36/1993-94 and 39/1993-04 before the Collector, Darbhanga under the provisions of 45B of the Ceiling Act for reopening of the entire ceiling proceeding. Finally, by the impugned orders, Miscellaneous Cases filed by the petitioners were dismissed without considering the merit of the case simply this ground in support of their claim, applicants/petitioners did not file any document. The report submitted by Halka Karmchari and Halka Inspector to this effect that the lands declared surplus of the land holder belongs to petitioners was ignored. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents-state, it is admitted that some error are there in the gazette u/S 15(i) of the Act which needs correction/rectification. Lands of such Khata Nos. and Plot Nos. have been mentioned as surplus which were not part of the Ceiling Proceeding. Considering entire facts and circumstances of the - 5 - case, I find that it is a fit case for reopening u/S 45B of the Ceiling Act. In fact, the proceeding has been decided ex-party as even land holder did not appear at any point of time. Accordingly, impugned order passed by the Collector, Darbhanga in Miscellaneous Case No.36/1993-94 & 39/1993- 94 are quashed. Both the matter are remitted back to the Collector, Darbhanga. He will re-open the Ceiling Case No. 37 of 1980-81/40 of 1984-85, start proceeding from the stage u/S 10 of the Act and decide the proceeding in accordance with law. The proceeding must be conducted giving appropriate opportunity to the petitioner and all other interested persons. It is expected that the Collector, Darbhanga as well as his sub- ordinate authorities will finally conclude/decide this proceeding within a year. Petitioners will continue with the possession of their lands till the proceeding is finally decided. These writ applications are allowed. (Mridula Mishra, J.)