Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 933 (PAT)

Indira Devi v. State Of Bihar

2005-10-07

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Substantially, the petitioners are challenging the order, as contained in annexure 5, whereby and whereunder on remand of the ceiling case, objections filed by the petitioners have not been considered. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that vide order, as contained in annexure 3, the appellate court remanded back the matter to the Additional Collector to reconsider the same on the following questions: (i) to reconsider the case for acquisition of the land under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as "Act"), and (ii) to consider the cases ot other co-sharers, which have been included in the draft statement. 4. Pursuant to the order of remand, the petitioners filed their objections under section 10(3) of the Act, but the Additional Collector refused to consider the second question pertaining to claims of the petitioners. 5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that initially the proceeding under the Act was initiated against one Mahendra Mishra for acquisition of surplus land under the provisions of the Act and details of the land were published under section 10(2) of the Act on 27.2.1982, and, accordingly, a draft publication was published in the District gazette on 16.10.1982, pursuant to which Mahendra Mishra filed his objections under section 10(3) of the Act, wherein he stated that the alleged surplus lands are also owned by his co-sharers, namely, the petitioners, but the authority under the Act did not consider the matter on the line of the objections filed by Mahendra Mishra nor any notice was caused to be served upon the other co-sharers, whose names were disclosed in objections filed by Mahendra Mishra. However, in appeal filed by Mahendra Mishra these questions were considered and the appellate authority keeping in view the objections filed by Mahendra Mishra under section 10(3) of the Act remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for fresh consideration. It is also submitted that after remand the petitioners filed their objections under section 10(3) of the Act on 13.3.1984 before final publication of draft statement under section 11 of the Act, which has been summarily rejected by the Additional Collector by the order impugned. 6. It is also submitted that after remand the petitioners filed their objections under section 10(3) of the Act on 13.3.1984 before final publication of draft statement under section 11 of the Act, which has been summarily rejected by the Additional Collector by the order impugned. 6. Prima facie, it appears from annexure 5 that the matter was remanded to the Additional Collector for reconsideration of the same pertaining to the shares of the petitioners in the lands in question It is further manifest that after rejection of the objections filed by the petitioners, the Additional Collector directed for final publication of the draft statement under section 11 of the Act fixing 9.7.1984. 7. It appears from the materials on record that much before the final publication under section 11 of the Act, the petitioners co-sharers filed their objections under section 10(3) of the Act. Pursuant to the direction of the appellate authority, which was to be considered in accordance with law, the matter was not finally disposed of after remand on filing of the objections. 8. Final publication of the draft statement made after expiry of the limitation is subject to the result of appeal or revision and the final publication under section 11 of the Act and its publication in the official gazette under section 15(1) of the Act shall abide by the result of the appeal or revision. 9. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Mahanth Daya Ram Das & Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar and Ors. (1975 Bihar Bar Council Journal 667). 10. Learned counsel for the State submitted that since objections were filed at a belated stage, the same was not considered by the Additional Collector. 11. Since the matter had come to the Additional Collector on remand to consider the cases of the petitioners, who were said to be the co-sharers, the objections filed after passing of the order in appeal was worth consideration. The submission of learned counsel for the State is, therefore, fit to be rejected. 12. It appears that the learned Additional Collector without appreciating the order of remand and without considering the objections filed by the petitioners passed the order impugned, as contained in annexure 5, which appears to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 13. The submission of learned counsel for the State is, therefore, fit to be rejected. 12. It appears that the learned Additional Collector without appreciating the order of remand and without considering the objections filed by the petitioners passed the order impugned, as contained in annexure 5, which appears to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court dated 19.7.1984, the lands have not been distributed. 14. For the reasons, aforementioned, this application is allowed, the order impugned, as contained in annexure 5, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Collector, Khagaria to reconsider the same afresh in light of the objections filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. No order as to costs.