Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 195 (PAT)

State Of Bihar v. Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd.

2004-02-17

NAGENDRA RAI, NAVIN SINHA

body2004
Judgment Nagendra Rai and Navin Sinha JJ. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the State of Bihar in a very unusual circumstance. The prayer made on behalf of the State is for quashing the entire proceeding pending before the Munsif, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 150 of 1985 including the order of injunction restraining the Collector under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to proceed with the Land. Ceiling Case No. 86 of 1973-74 pending against the respondent Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, hereinafter referred to as the Company. 2. The factual matrix for disposal of the case are that the aforesaid land ceiling proceeding was initiated against the Company, certain orders were passed which was challenged before this Court and this Court quashed the order and directed the authorities to initiate fresh proceeding. Thereafter, draft statement was prepared under section 10(2) of the Act which was challenged by the petitioner before this Court and the said draft statement was also quashed on the ground of having been prepared in breach of statutory provisions and the matter was remitted to the authorities to proceed afresh in terms of the provisions of the Act. 3. Again the authorities proceeded and passed certain orders. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the respondents moved this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 29 and 150 of 1977. In the meantime, provisions of the Act was amended by Bihar Ordinance 66 of 1981 which was followed by successive Ordinances and was lastly substituted by Amendment Act 55 of 1982. Sections 32A and 32B were inserted apart from other changes by the said Amending Act. Taking note of the aforesaid provisions, this Court in the aforesaid two writ applications did not interfere with the orders passed by the authorities under the Act on the ground that as no final publication under section 11 of the Act has been made, the proceeding has to be initiated afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 32B of the Act. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court is as follows : "In terms of Section 32B of the Act, therefore, the Collector has to proceed and dispose of the ceiling case afresh in accordance with the provision of Section 10 of the Act. The operative portion of the order passed by this Court is as follows : "In terms of Section 32B of the Act, therefore, the Collector has to proceed and dispose of the ceiling case afresh in accordance with the provision of Section 10 of the Act. That being the command of the law, action taken in the ceiling case against the petitioners until now has been washed out. In that view, it is not necessary to decide the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. The Collector, under the Act, will now proceed with the ceiling case and dispose it off in accordance with law." This Court directed the parties including the land holder to appear before the Collector on or before 20th March, 1984 with a further direction that no notice need be issued to the land holder for appearance. Learned counsel appearing for the State communicated the aforesaid decision to the Ceiling authority i.e. the Additional Collector under the Act who was in , session of the matter though the copy of the said order was not received by the Additional Collector. Thereafter, the Additional Collector ordered for taking steps under section 10(2) of the Act i.e. for preparation of draft statement and accordingly steps were taken and order for publication of draft statement was made on 9.12.1985. 4. In the meantime, it appears that the land holder-Company filed a suit before the Munsif, Bettiah on 23.11.1985 challenging the initiation of land ceiling proceeding itself as well as orders passed in the land ceiling proceeding and an order of status quo was passed on 25.11.1985 by Mr. M. Ali, Munsif, Bettiah and subsequently by order dated 17.6.1986 order of injunction was passed restraining the authorities from making publication of draft statement of the proceeding in the land ceiling case. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of injunction the State has preferred appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 1986 before the District Judge, Bettiah which is still pending and has not been disposed of. The State thereafter filed present writ application with the aforesaid prayer i.e. for quashing the entire proceeding pending in the civil court on the ground of non- maintainability in terms of provisions contained under section 43 of the Act. 6. During the course of arguments, Mr. The State thereafter filed present writ application with the aforesaid prayer i.e. for quashing the entire proceeding pending in the civil court on the ground of non- maintainability in terms of provisions contained under section 43 of the Act. 6. During the course of arguments, Mr. Basudeo Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that his client is ready to withdraw the suit provided a direction is issued to the authorities to proceed afresh in the light of the directions issued by this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 29 and 150 of 1977. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection regarding withdrawal of the suit as well as for continuation of the proceeding in terms of the decisions rendered by this Court. 8. In that view of the matter, as prayed for, Title Suit No. 150 of 1985 is permitted to be withdrawn, the result of the withdrawal of the suit is that the order of injunction dated 25.11.1985 and 17.6.1986 stands vacated and the appeal filed by the State against the order of injunction in view of the said fact has also become infructuous. 9. As stated above, this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 29 and 150 of 1977 had directed the authorities to proceed afresh in terms of section 32B of the Act. Section 32B of the Act runs as follows : "32B. Initiation of fresh proceeding.- All those proceedings other than appeal, revision, review or reference referred to in Section 32A pending on the date of the commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982, and in which final publication under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Act as it stood before the amendment by aforesaid Act, had not been made, shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Act." 10. The scope of section 32A as well as aforesaid section 32B of the Act has been considered by this Court in a number of cases. It will be apt to make reference to some of the cases only. 11. The scope of section 32A as well as aforesaid section 32B of the Act has been considered by this Court in a number of cases. It will be apt to make reference to some of the cases only. 11. In Chandrajot Kuer vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 Patna 220 [:1984 PLJR 90], this Court held that in case no final publication has been made under section 11 of the Act then the entire proceeding from beginning to end must be carried out afresh after abatement of the proceeding in terms of the provisions contained under sections 32A and 32B of the Act. 12. The scope of the said provision was also considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Harendra Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1985 Patna 38 [: 1984 PLJR 908 ], wherein the ratio laid down in the case of Chandrajot Kuer (Supra) was affirmed and it was held that when both the sections 32A and 32B are read together they cry a halt to all the earlier proceedings and to begin on a clean slate and to have them disposed of afresh. With effect from 9th April, 1981 the proceeding has to be decided afresh in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Act taking into consideration the changes brought about by the Amending Act. 13. What is the meaning of fresh proceeding from the stage of section 10 of the Act has been considered by one of us (Nagendra Rai, J.) in the case of Mohan Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 780 , which has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Birendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2003 (4) PLJR 763 . It has been held in Mohan Chaudharys case (supra) as follows :- "17. The Act 55/1982 has brought substantial changes in the Act and the fresh proceeding from the stage of section 10 has to be disposed of in terms of the amended provisions. The first step at the stage of section 10 is to prepare a draft statement under section 10(1) of the Act. This draft statement has to be prepared by following the procedure provided under rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act. The first step at the stage of section 10 is to prepare a draft statement under section 10(1) of the Act. This draft statement has to be prepared by following the procedure provided under rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act. It provides inter alia that the Collector on receiving returns under section 6 or 8 or the information under section 9 of the Act shall call upon the Anchal Adhikari and other officers as mentioned in the aforesaid rule to make a verification and to send the report which shall be verified by Collector having jurisdiction over the area concerned with the revenue records. The Collector is also empowered under rule 8 to examine any document produced by the land holder and to hold a local enquiry after he considers necessary and thereafter a draft statement has to be prepared. Rule 9 of the rules empowers the Collector to make an enquiry regarding the land in respect of exemption/claim under section 29 of the Act and thereafter a draft statement shall be prepared as provided in rule 10 in Form L.C. 5. 18. Rule 8 has to be followed before preparing a draft statement under section 10(1) of the Act. While preparing the draft statement, according to the amended provision, the area and the description of the land transferred by the land holder in accordance with or in contravention of the provision of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 as required by (C1), the substance of finding of the Collector under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 5 as required by (C2) and the substance of the recommendation and order regarding exemption under section 29 have to be also incorporated meaning thereby enquiry under section 5(iii) regarding annulment of the sale deed has to be held earlier before the draft statement and then this finding is to be incorporated. Similarly, the substance of the information recommendation and the order regarding exemption under section 29 of the Act have also to be incorporated. Accordingly, the recommendation and the exemption have to be initially determined by the authority before publishing of the draft statement. 19. Similarly, the substance of the information recommendation and the order regarding exemption under section 29 of the Act have also to be incorporated. Accordingly, the recommendation and the exemption have to be initially determined by the authority before publishing of the draft statement. 19. Thus, in view of the amended provision when the earlier proceedings are nullified in terms of Amending Act then while proceeding afresh under section 10(1) of the Act as amended the authorities have to comply with the aforesaid requirement before issuing draft statement under section 10(1) of the Act. Unless, these things are done afresh the proceeding cannot be treated to have been started in terms of the provisions contained under sections 32A & 32B of the Act." 14. Thus, according to the law settled by this Court, once the proceeding has abated it has to be started afresh at the stage of section 10 of the Act and before issuing a draft statement under section 10 all other formalities as required before issuance of draft statement under section 10 of the Act have to be also complied with. From perusal of the orders of the ceiling authorities which have been brought on record, it appears that inspite of the directions issued by this Court to proceed fresh in terms of section 32B of the Act, the authorities have proceeded from the stage of preparation of draft statement itself without complying with the other requirements as indicated above. Accordingly, we direct the authorities to proceed afresh from the stage of section 10 of the Act in the light of the observations made above. 15. The proceeding under the Land Ceiling Act is to be disposed of expeditiously to achieve the object of the Act but unfortunately this case has remained pending since 1974 i.e. for more than 30 years. In such a situation we are of the view that a time has come where proceeding has to be disposed of within a time frame. No one should be allowed to take unnecessary adjournments. In view of the large area of land involved in this case, we are also of the view that the Collector of the District himself should dispose of the proceeding and he will not transfer the case to the Collector under the Act. No one should be allowed to take unnecessary adjournments. In view of the large area of land involved in this case, we are also of the view that the Collector of the District himself should dispose of the proceeding and he will not transfer the case to the Collector under the Act. We direct both the parties to appear before the Collector on 24th May, 2004 and thereafter the Collector of the district will proceed in accordance with the observations made above. He should conclude the proceeding after complying with the formalities within a period of nine months thereafter. 16. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application stands disposed of.