Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 347 (PAT)

Ram Babu v. State Of Bihar

2011-03-07

S.K.KATRIAR, S.P.SINGH

body2011
JUDGEMENT S.K.KATRIAR, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24,09.1996, passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in case no. 135 of 1995, whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioners has been substantially dismissed, giving relief in part. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. Land ceiling proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was initiated against one Satya Narain Prasad in the district of Sitamarhi, which was registered as Ceiling Case No. 10/ 1970-71. He died on 11.06.1982, leaving behind his heirs whose description is to be found in the report dated 24.05.1989 (Annexure-1), to the learned Circle Officer, Riga, and the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: 1. g° «T5gt TTFJt TRTC -70 W$ 2. Sft WF3T\ TOR "p 55 =Pf 3. W3 TOK ^pT 50 ^ 4. cfWT "SraK "P 44 cref 5. ?Tp^ TOR ^ 39 M 6. ^TRt vpi -aft 39 cpf % :- WTt m ^T 3^Mlfad ll Karamchari Riga 24.5.89 C. I. Rega 29.5.89 C. O. Riga 20.6.89." 3. The authorities under the Act determined the total lands held by the family and allotted two units to them, one in the name of Satya Narain Prasad, and the other one in the name of Bharat Prasad. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners ultimately moved the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, where their claim for three more units has been rejected on the ground that Ram Babu Prasad is settled in his Sasural at Munger, Lakshman Prasad is settled in Australia, and Shatrughan Prasad was a minor on 09.09.1970. However, the Board of Revenue excluded 4.08 % acres of land from the ceiling area because the same is situate in municipal area, and should not be treated to be land within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act. 4. While the assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ram Babu Prasad, Lakshman Prasad, and Shatrughan Prasad are entitled to one unit each. 5. Learned Government Pleader no. 10 has supported the impugned order. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 4. While the assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ram Babu Prasad, Lakshman Prasad, and Shatrughan Prasad are entitled to one unit each. 5. Learned Government Pleader no. 10 has supported the impugned order. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that the Board of Revenue has completely misdirected itself, and has gone beyond the scope of the Act while determining the claims of Ram Babu Prasad and Lakshman Prasad. Even if it were true that Ram Babu Prasad has settled in his Sasural, it does not debar him from allotment of one independent unit in a situation where he was admittedly a major on 09.09.1970. No provision of the Act prohibits allotment of a separate unit to him in such a situation. Equally Lakshman Prasad cannot be deprived of one separate unit because he is settled in Australia. No provision of the Act prevents him from allotment of one separate unit in such circumstances, in a situation when he was admittedly a major on 09.09.1970. 7. In so far as Shatrughan Prasad is concerned, it appears to us from the report of the learned Circle Officer set out in paragraph 2 hereinabove that he was 39 years of age on 20.06.1989, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereinabove. Tracing it backwards to 09.09.1970, he was more than 18 years of age on that date. The Board of Revenue has completely overlooked the definition of minor child occurring in Section 2 (eee) of the Act which is reproduced herein below. "minor child" in relation to a family whose ceiling area is determined under Section 4 with reference to the land held by it on the 9th September, 1970, shall mean "a person who has not attained the age of eighteen years on that date" and in respect of future acquisition as contemplated in Section 18 the date on which such acquisition takes place;" It is evident on a plain reading of this definition that a person up to the age of 18 years does not attain the age of majority, and is a minor. On the own showing of the State Government, Shatrughan Prasad was more than 18 years of age on 09.09.1970, and is obviously entitled to a separate unit. On the own showing of the State Government, Shatrughan Prasad was more than 18 years of age on 09.09.1970, and is obviously entitled to a separate unit. 8 To summarize the position, late Satya Narain Prasad, his widow, and the minor children are together entitled to one unit. Ram Babu Prasad, Bharat Prasad, Lakshman Prasad, and Shatrughan Prasad are entitled to one unit each. In other words, the family is entitled to total of five units, and after excluding 4.08 % acres of municipal land which has already been exempted from the ceiling area by the Board of Revenue. 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. S.P.SINGH, J. 10 I agree.