Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 105 (PAT)

Yaspal Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-23

NAGENDRA RAI, R.S.GARG

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parlies. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ application filed by the appellants against the order dated 11.3.2003 passed by the Minister, Revenue and Land Development in exercise of power under section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. 3. Admitted position is that land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Mahendra Kumar and Mathura Kumar being Land Ceiling Case Nos. 226/75-76 and 233/75-76. After the conclusion of the proceeding, 30 acres and odd were declared as surplus land. The appellants in the year 1999 came to know that the lands which belong to them and they are the land holders within the meaning of the Act have been wrongly treated as lands of the land holders of the aforesaid land ceiling proceeding and have acquired as such by issuance of notification under section 15(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application under section 45-B of the Act which has been dismissed by the Minister and the said order has been upheld by the learned single Judge. 4. Under the provisions of the Act only the land of the land holder can be acquired in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act. If the land holder has not been noticed and his land has been acquired by treating it as the land of another land holder, in that case, remedy is provided under section 45-B of the Act to make a grievance with regard to the said fact. 5. The claim of the appellants is with regard to 3.29 acres of land of old plot no. 3502 (new plot 5198) under old Khata no. 1179 (new khata no. 1438) and 0.79 acres of land in portion of old plot no. 3488 (new plot no. 5207) under old khata no. 1184 (new khata no. 2202) of village Kharik in the district of Bhagalpur. Admittedly, land ceiling proceeding was initiated in the district of Purnea against the aforesaid Mahendra Kumar and Mathura Kumar as stated above and aforesaid lands were treated as their lands and the same have been declared as surplus. 3488 (new plot no. 5207) under old khata no. 1184 (new khata no. 2202) of village Kharik in the district of Bhagalpur. Admittedly, land ceiling proceeding was initiated in the district of Purnea against the aforesaid Mahendra Kumar and Mathura Kumar as stated above and aforesaid lands were treated as their lands and the same have been declared as surplus. The claim of the appellants is that they are the land holders and their names have been recorded in the records of right and they are in possession of the same and other persons have no concern with the same. In support of this, they have also appended documents in the writ application which were also filed before the learned Minister. 6. From perusal of the order of the learned Minister, it appears that he has not considered those documents and has rejected the claim of the appellants only on the round of delay. In our view the whole approach adopted by the learned Minister is not in accordance with law. If a person is not party to the land ceiling proceeding and it comes to his notice that his land has been wrongly included in the land of others, then his claim has to be entertained and his claim cannot be thrown on the ground of delay. If it is found during enquiry that the land did not belong to the land holders against whom land ceiling proceeding was initiated, then their land has to be excluded and it is to be treated as land of the land holders. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. The order passed by the learned Minister, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application, is also set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Minister for Revenue and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna to consider the question in accordance with the observations made above. 8. Till the disposal of the matter by the learned Minister, if the appellants are found in possession of the lands in dispute, they should not be dispossessed. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed.