Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 284 (JHR)

Anita Kumari v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2006-03-29

R.K.MERATHIA

body2006
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.8.1992 (Annexure 1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. 57 of 1989, (adopting the order of the same date passed in the connected case being Case No. 51 of 1989-Annexure 1/A); and also the order dated 26.12.1988 (Annexure 2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in Case No. XV/31/86-87 (adopting the order passed in Case No. XV/27/87-88-Annexure 2/A); and also the order dated 7.4.1986 (Annexure 3) passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau in L.C. Case No. 51/73-74. 2. A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was started against one Shyam Bihari Singh by the Additional Collector, Daltonganj who by his order dated 18.10.1976 held that the land holder was entitled to retain 45 acres of Class IV land and the rest of the area was declared as surplus. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide order dated 19.7.1977 in Appeal No. XV/41/76-77. During the pendency of the appeal, Shyam Bihari Singh died on 4.2.1977 leaving behind his widow Smt. Buchani Devi and two daughters, namely, Smt. Girija Devi and Smt. Parvati Devi. After the disposal of the appeal, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue being Revision Case No. 679 of 1977 which was rejected by order dated 15.7.1978. Against the said order of the revisional authority, a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 4795 of 1978 was filed contending that due to death of Shyam Bihari Singh during the pendency of the appeal, the entire proceedings abated. The High Court by order dated 17.4.1979 quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector, Palamau to take further steps in the matter. 3. Accordingly, the Additional Collector, Palamau initiated a fresh proceeding against the land holder Smt. Buchani Devi and her four sons, namely, (i) Krishna Murari Singh (ii) Brij Bihari Singh (iii) Baldeo Singh; and (iv) Ram Ballabh Prasad Singh. 3. Accordingly, the Additional Collector, Palamau initiated a fresh proceeding against the land holder Smt. Buchani Devi and her four sons, namely, (i) Krishna Murari Singh (ii) Brij Bihari Singh (iii) Baldeo Singh; and (iv) Ram Ballabh Prasad Singh. The Additional Collector issued a draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Act to which objections under Section 10(3) of the Act were filed, inter-alia, on the ground that on 10.9.1970, out of 315.49 acres of land in Village Sirha and 174.58 acres of land in Village Kurkutta, total lands being 490.07 acres, the land holder Smt. Buchani Devi sold 323.67 acres of land to several persons, namely, (1) Lal Ranvijay Nath Shahdeo (2) Lal Ranjan Nath Shahdeo (3) Lal Manoj Nath Shahdeo (4) Smt. Madhubala Raj Singh (5) Smt. Nurbala Raj Singh (6) Smt. Shashi Bala Raj Singh (7) Smt. Raj Bala Nath Singh and (8) Smt. Anita Kumari, the writ petitioner. 4. By the impugned order dated 7.4.1986, the Additional Collector rejected such objections holding that the purchasers are non-else, but the daughter, grand daughter and grand sons of the land holder; that the consideration in each sale deed was only Rs. 2,000/- for 40-50 acres of land; that such sale was without permission of the Deputy Commissions and that the lands were in cultivating possession of the land-holder. Therefore, he held that the said sale deeds were sham transactions created for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a draft statement under Section 11(1) was served on the land holders on 15.10.1986. In appeal, this order was confirmed. Then the petitioner moved the Board of Revenue which also confirmed the said orders. 5. Challenging the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not party in the said proceedings and the proceedings were not disposed off in terms of Section 32B of the Act. 6. The said contentions are misconceived. The definition of family in Section 2(ee) of the Act means and includes a person, his or her spouse and minor children. In Section 4 of the Act, the ceiling limit as on the appointed day (9.9.1970) is defined for one family consisting of not more than five members. The land holder Buchani Devi along with her four sons were parties in the proceedings. In Section 4 of the Act, the ceiling limit as on the appointed day (9.9.1970) is defined for one family consisting of not more than five members. The land holder Buchani Devi along with her four sons were parties in the proceedings. As such, the land holder took further plea that she has gifted some lands to her two daughters, which pleas also was found false. Petitioner is daughters daughter of Buchani Devi. She could not/cannot claim her share in the lands, as a member of family. Her claim is based on the sale deed which has been held to be a sham document. Petitioner moved the Board of Revenue where she was heard and the entire matter was considered. In such circumstances, she cannot be heard to say that the impugned orders are bad, as she was not heard. 7. Section 32B was inserted by Act 55 of 1982. By the same Act, certain provisions were inserted/substituted in Section 10 of the Act. It is clear that the impugned order dated 7.4.1986 was passed, keeping in view the amendment brought in the year 1982 in Section 10 of the Act. Moreover, under Section 10(2), the draft statement was required to be published and served on the land holders or their guardians and they could file objections under Section 10(3) of the Act. The petitioner has no locus standi to raise objection about non-compliance of Section 32B of the Act. 8. All the three authorities have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the land holder executed sham sale deeds for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the Act. On 10.9.1970, i.e. just on the next day of the appointed day (9.9.1970) the land holder Buchani Devi executed several sale deeds in favour of her daughters, grand sons and grant daughters. Petitioner (daughters daughter) is one of them. The said findings are based on relevant aspects of the matter. I find no reason to interfere with them. 9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the State Legal Services Authorities, Jharkhand within a month. The stay order stands vacated. The order be communicated to the Additional Collector, Palamau without any delay. 10. I find no reason to interfere with them. 9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the State Legal Services Authorities, Jharkhand within a month. The stay order stands vacated. The order be communicated to the Additional Collector, Palamau without any delay. 10. For the information of the Additional Collector, it is recorded that some other writ petition arising out of the same impugned order such as writ petitions C.W.J.C. No. 9368 of 1992P Lal Manoj Nath Shahdeo v. The State of Bihar and Ors.; C.W.J.C. No. 5159 of 1993P Madhubala Raj Singh and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.; C.W.J.C. No. 1328 of 1993P Lal Ranjan Nath Shahdeo and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors.; stand dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.9.1993, 28.9.2005 and 28.9.2005 respectively.