Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 825 (PAT)

Safi Ahmad Khan v. State Of Bihar

2010-04-20

V.N.SINHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners in the four writ application are descendants of adalat Khan. They have filed these writ applications praying inter alia to set aside the order dated 5.3.1983 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Land Ceiling, Bagaha in Case No.100 of 1975, anneure-1, which has been affirmed by the Collector, West Champaran, bettiah under order dated 29.8.1986, Annexure-2 as also by the additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar under resolution dated 28.2.1994 passed in Case No.247 of 1986, Annexure-3, whereunder objection of the petitioners to consider their case for grant of unit under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) has been rejected. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that from the genealogical table given in the verification report, Annexure-5 also it will appear that petitioners are the descendants of Adalat Khan as Safi ahmad Khan petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.7671 of 1999 is the son of adalat Khan, Bibi Begam Khatoon petitioner in C. W. J. C. No.8180 of 1999 is the daughter of Adalat Khan, Tazmuddin Khan petitioner in c. W. J. C. No.8179 of 1999 and Kayamuddin Khan petitioner in c. W. J. C. No.8262 of 1999 are the grand sons of Adalat Khan being the sons of Safi Ahmad Khan against whom Land Ceiling Case No.100 of 1975 was initiated. It is further submitted that from the verification report, Annexure-5 it shall further appear that Tazmuddin Khan, Ali ahmad Khan, Adalat Khan and Dukhi Bhar were the land holders as separate jamabandi was running in the name of each of them. The verification report further indicates that the total land in the family of adalat Khan was 44.51 acres, out of which 28.85 acres were of Class-4 and 15.69 acres of Class-1 out of which 1.12 acres was of Dukhi Bhar. The verification report further indicates that the total land in the family of adalat Khan was 44.51 acres, out of which 28.85 acres were of Class-4 and 15.69 acres of Class-1 out of which 1.12 acres was of Dukhi Bhar. Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the entries made in the verification report submitted that as per the verification report the authorities were required to have issued notice of the ceiling proceedings to all the land holders in whose name jamabandi stood even prior to the death of Adalat Khan who died some time in the year 1982 but thereafter the notice of the ceiling proceeding was given only to his elder son Ali Ahmad Khan and without considering the case of the petitioners and other heirs of Adalat Khan the three impugned orders have been passed, which is wholly without jurisdiction. 4. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents does not dispute the genealogical table given by the petitioners in paragraph-4 of the writ application, rather the said genealogical table is even admitted in the verification report. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that petitioners are also the heirs of Adalat Khan and ought to have been issued notice of the ceiling proceeding after his death in the year 1982. 5. As the impugned order have been passed without considering the objection of the petitioners there is no difficulty in concluding that the impugned orders dated 5.3.1983, 29.8.1986 and 28.2.1994, Annexures-1, 2 and 3 suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, which are accordingly, quashed with direction to the petitioners to appear before the Collector, West Champaran, who should call back the records of Ceiling Case No.100 of 1975 from the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, Land Ceiling, Bagha or wherever it is pending and direct the petitioners to submit their objection within four weeks of their appearance. The objection should be considered and disposed of either by the Collector of the district or by any officer who is Collector under the Act and is authorized by him, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the objection. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of.