Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 780 (PAT)

Rajdeo Bhagat v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-18

AFTAB ALAM

body2007
Judgment Aftab Alarm, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the J.C. to G.P. XVI representing the State. No one appears despite service of notice to respondents 6 to 9. 2. This writ petition arises from a ceiling proceeding and the petitioners came to this court with the usual story that the lands purchased by them bona fide and for valuable consideration were included in the land ceiling proceeding against their vendors and were declared surplus in the vendors hands without any information or notice to them and even without annulling the sales under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. 3. There are nineteen petitioners before the court. According to them, they purchased small pieces of land under registered sale deeds from respondents 6 to 9 on different dates from 1956 to 1981. The details with regard to the lands purchased by each of the petitioners from the aforesaid respondents is stated in paras 4 to 15 of the writ petition. The total lands purchased by all the nineteen petitioners from the respondents under different sale deeds is stated to be about 12 acres in area. 4. Land ceiling proceedings being Land Ceiling Case Nos. 240 of 1973-74 and 258 of 1973-74 were initiated against respondents 6 to 9. The land holders in each of the two proceedings were shown to hold around 64 acres of land and a total area of 11.38 acres was declared surplus in the two proceedings. 5. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that they had no knowledge or information about the two proceedings at any intermediate stage and they came to learn about it only on publication of the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act in which some of the petitioners lands too were shown as surplus. The petitioners then filed an appeal before the Collector, Siwan for excluding their lands from the proceeding held against respondents 6 to 9. 6. The petitioners appeal was recommended to be dismissed by the Addl. Collector by order, dated 19.9.1984 simply on the ground that a gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was already published. On the recommendation made by the Addl. Collector, the Collector formally dismissed the petitioners appeal by order, dated 15.10.1984. 6. The petitioners appeal was recommended to be dismissed by the Addl. Collector by order, dated 19.9.1984 simply on the ground that a gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was already published. On the recommendation made by the Addl. Collector, the Collector formally dismissed the petitioners appeal by order, dated 15.10.1984. Against the order passed by the Collector the petitioners moved the Board of Revenue in revision that was registered as Case No. 383 of 1984. The Board of Revenue also declined to hear the petitioners case observing that a notification having been issued under Section 15(1) of the Act, it was no longer in the hands of the Collector to make any change or amendment in the proceeding. The Board of Revenue dismissed the petitioners revision bv order, dated 20.12.1986. 7. This writ petition was filed challenging the orders passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue on 15.2.1989. It was admitted for hearing on 8.8.1989 with an interim direction that the petitioners lands should not be distributed to any third party. 8. Mr. Giri submitted that in the absence of any notice or informtion to the petitioners it was wholly unreasonable, unfair and unjust to take over as surplus the lands held by the petitioners under bona fide purchase and for valuable considerations from the land holders. He further submitted that the petitioners lands could be included in the land ceiling proceedings only after a proper order of annulment was passed under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act. However, taking the line of least resistence Mr. Giri submitted that in any event under Section 9(4) of the Act the lands covered by the sale deeds executed by the proceedees (respondents 6 to 9) must fail in the unit(s) allowed to them and an equal area may be taken away from the lands allotted to the proceedees. Since the total land purchased by the petitioners was about 12 acres in area, it would be well within the units allowed to the proceedees and an equal area would be taken away from the lands allotted to them under the final statement under Section 12(2) and under Section 15(1) of the Act. 9. The submission is well founded and must be accepted. 9. The submission is well founded and must be accepted. This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make an application before the Collector, Siwan under Section 9(4) of the Act to show the lands covered by the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners in the units allotted to their vendors (respondents 6 to 9) and to take away an equal area from the land earlier allotted to them. It will also be open to the petitioners to challenge the proceeding in light of the 1982 amendment in the Act. In case such an application is filed within six weeks from today, the interim order passed earlier in the case restraining the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioners from their respective pieces of land shall continue to remain operative till a final order is passed on the petitioners application. 10. This writ petition, thus, stands disposed of.