Md.Ishlam v. The State Of Bihar

Mr. Hareram Singh, AC to GP-22 Mr. Kumar Malendu ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER Patna High Court CWJC No.3738 of 2007 (10) dt.17-07-2013 10 17-07-2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Govt. Pleader No.22, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 despite valid service of notice upon them. In the light of oral direction issued by this Court, a supplementary counter-affidavit is being filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 5 after service of its copy on the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, which is taken on the record. It is common case of the parties that a Land Ceilign Case No. 106 of 1973-74 was initiated against the landholder Mohan Choudhary and others including Most. Rohini Devi under the provisions of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ( for brevity “Land Ceiling Act”). Draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Land Ceiling Act was published wherein it was shown that the landholder was having 760.67 acres of total area of the lands. On consideration of objection filed on behalf of the landholder under Section 10(3) of the Land Ceiling Act, an order was passed by the Collector under the Land Ceiling Act and, accordingly, final publication of the draft statement was made under Section 11(1) of the Land Ceiling Act wherein 567.35 acres of land were declared Patna High Court CWJC No.3738 of 2007 (10) dt.17-07-2013 surplus. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Collector under the Land Ceiling Act, landholder filed appeal and revision before the prescribed authorities under the Land Ceiling Act and finally they filed CWJC No. 609 of 1990, before this Court assailing the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the authorities under the Land Ceiling Act. It appears that while the matter was still sub-judice, the lands declared surplus under Section 11 (1) of the Land Ceiling Act were acquired by the State authorities under Section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act by Gazette dated 1.2.1986 and were distributed amongst beneficiaries including the petitioners, and they were granted parcha under Section 27 of the Land Ceiling Act by the competent authority. However, CWJC No. 609 of 1990 filed by the landholders was finally allowed by a judgment and order dated 16th November 1999 (Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit) passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and the orders passed by the original authority, appellate authority as also the revisional authority were set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Additional Collector for deciding the matter afresh. In view of the order of remand made by this Court earlier, parcha issued in favour of the petitioners in the year 1989 stood nullified. In view Patna High Court CWJC No.3738 of 2007 (10) dt.17-07-2013 of the aforesaid remand order, fresh draft statement was published, objections filed by the landholders were considered and fresh order was passed, whereafter, the area of surplus land was reduced, on the basis of the materials produced by the landholders and the findings recorded by the competent authority. Thereafter, only 179.98 acres of lands, which were found to be surplus, were acquired under Section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, out of which 49.51 acres of lands have been distributed amongst beneficiaries including the petitioners. Accordingly, fresh parchas have been issued to the different persons including the petitioners in terms of Section 27 of the Land Ceiling Act., but with reduced area of lands allotted to them. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have been allotted fresh parcha, but for reduced area of the land. According to them, once parcha was granted to them earlier in the year 1989, then the area allotted to them should not have been reduced by the authorities without giving them opportunity of hearing. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners seems to be misconceived and cannot be entertained. Admittedly, parcha allotted to the petitioners earlier under Section 27 of the Land Ceiling Act was the result of the final order passed in the land Patna High Court CWJC No.3738 of 2007 (10) dt.17-07-2013 ceiling proceeding against the landlord. However, all the orders passed against the landholder were quashed by this Court by judgment and order dated 16th November, 1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 609 of 1990 and the matter was considered afresh in compliance of the order of this Court and fresh order was passed. The petitioners cannot raise valid objection with respect to the fresh parcha issued to them, as contained in Annexure-3 series, as also to the private respondents. Apparently, on fresh consideration, the area of surplus land was reduced and it has been distributed amongst the beneficiaries including the petitioners as per the availability of the lands. No case for interference is made out. The application stands dismissed. BTiwary/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)