Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 886 (PAT)

Vinod Lal Das v. State

2007-05-03

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed and with the consent of the parties this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioners state and submit that they are purchasers from erstwhile land holder by registered sale deeds of the years 1962 and 1965, i.e., prior to the cut off date 9.9.1970 but surely after 2.10.1959. When agriculture land ceiling proceedings were initiated after the year 1970 as against the landlord being the vendor of the petitioners, the land holder disclosed that he had bonafidely sold the land, inter alia, to the petitioners as aforesaid. Petitioners were noticed. They appeared and put their stand before the authority and as such the Additional Collector Land Ceiling, Madhubani concluded the proceedings by his final order in Ceiling Case No. 6/1973-74, dated 5.8.1995. In the order the Additional Collector has noticed that in village Narar (Jainagar) the land holder claimed exclusion of 111.39 acres of land on the ground that 10 acres, 17 kathas and 4 dhurs land had been surrendered by him in terms of Section 15(a) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act and rests were bonafidely sold between 22.10.1959 and 8.7.1970. So far as the land allegedly claimed to have been surrendered is concerned, the Additional Collector did not accept the same, as no paper in this regard was available on record and this was accordingly rejected. In no specific term the Additional Collector has held that rest of the lands, as aforesaid, were validly and bonafidely transferred and as such they were required to be deleted from the proceedings being bona fide sale. 4. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though this is the final order which has neither been interfered with nor modified in the ultimate notification issued declaring surplus land, the land purchased by him under those two sale deeds have already been included, not excluded, as it ought to have been done pursuant to the order of the Additional Collector. 5. In the counter affidavit, without annexing any order, it is submitted that it was the recommendation of the Subdivisional Officer to exclude the land, which was not accepted by the Additional Collector. 5. In the counter affidavit, without annexing any order, it is submitted that it was the recommendation of the Subdivisional Officer to exclude the land, which was not accepted by the Additional Collector. Secondly, it is stated that the land having been declared surplus in the notification, the petitioners ought to have preferred the statutory remedy against the said notification and not having done so the writ petition is misconceived. 6. A reference to the order of the Additional Collector, as aforesaid (Annexure 7) clearly shows that the sale transaction in favour of the petitioners were accepted as valid and consequently were bound to be excluded from the proceedings. The Additional Collector did not accept the recommendation of the Subdivisional Officer in respect of only 10 acres and not more land allegedly surrendered in terms of section 15(a) of the Act. That being the position, the counter affidavit is wrong and misleading to that effect and is against the record. Once it is found that the Additional Collector accepted the exclusion of land and the said order not having been interfered in any manner by any competent authority, the inclusion of those lands including the petitioners land in the final publication under Section 15(i) of the Act would be a mala fide exercise of power. 7. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the writ petition was either misconceived or not maintainable. 8. In view of the facts, as noted above, it is clear that the petitioners lands have been malafidely included in the final notification in respect of the aforesaid ceiling case. The action of the authority in this regard is held to be mala fide, illegal and liable to be quashed and is quashed as such. The inclusion of the lands of the petitioners in the final notification is held to be illegal and it is held that to that extent the notification is invalid and quashed. 9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is allowed.