Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 999 (PAT)

Jata Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-08-14

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2013
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of order dated 31.01.2007 (Annexure-8) passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2005 by the respondent no. 2 in exercise of his powers under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short “the Land Ceiling Act”), whereby he has refused to reopen the main Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1975-76 (The State of Bihar Vs. Bamdeo Singh), initiated and finally concluded against the landholder. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that grand father of the petitioners had purchased the lands under dispute bearing Khata No. 29, Khesra No. 76, area 1.76 acres situate at village Basantpur, P.S.- Ghorasahan District East Champaran from one Smt. Kashi Devi W/O Baikunth Bihari Singh. 4. It is admitted case of the parties that a Ceiling (Surplus) Case No. 1 of 1975-76 was started against the landholder- Bamdeo Singh son of Laxmi Narain Singh of village- Saratha, P.S. and Anchal Dhaka, District- East Champaran. The lands under dispute were treated to be the lands of the landholder. In the draft statement published under Section 10(2) of the Land Ceiling Act, lands in question was shown to be of the landholder Bamdeo Singh. An objection was filed by the landholder under Section 10(3) of the Land Ceiling Act, wherein he admitted that he had transferred certain plots of land to different persons, but so far the plots in question are concerned, the landholder did not admit about the transfer of the plot in question to the petitioners or their ancestors or any other persons. Consequently, the final order was passed under Section 10(3) of the Land Ceiling Act, whereafter final publication of draft statement under Section 11(1) of the Land Ceiling Act was made showing the lands in question to be the surplus land of the landholder. Thereafter, Gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act was issued acquiring the surplus land of the landholder including the lands in question by the State of Bihar, by virtue whereof the lands in question vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances. Thereafter, Gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act was issued acquiring the surplus land of the landholder including the lands in question by the State of Bihar, by virtue whereof the lands in question vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances. Admittedly, neither the petitioners nor their ancestors nor their vendors filed any objection under Section 10(3) of the Land Ceiling Act raising any grievance about inclusion of the plots in question in the ceiling surplus case and treating the same to be that of the landholder -Bamdeo Singh. 5. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the final publication of the draft statement dated 21.07.2000 under Section 11(1) of the Land Ceiling Act (Annexure-3) and Gazette publication dated 04.07.2001 under Section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, (Annexure-2) approached this Court in CWJC No. 15590 of 2001. The aforesaid CWJC No. 15590 of 2001 was finally disposed of by the order dated 24.02.2005 (Annexure-6) with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the State of Bihar under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act for reopening the main ceiling case for the purpose of exclusion of the land purchased by the petitioners. 6. In the light of aforesaid order dated 24.02.2005 (Annexure-6) the petitioners filed a petition under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act before the respondent No.2 giving rise to Misc. Case No. 1 of 2005, but, admittedly, in the aforesaid case filed under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act, the landholder Bamdeo Singh was not impleaded as party. Even the vendors or their heirs and legal representatives of the lands in question from whom the grand father of the petitioners allegedly purchased the lands in question were not impleaded as parties in the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 1 of 2005. In absence of the landholder- Bamdeo singh and the vendors of the petitioners, the petition filed under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act was incompetent due to non-joinder of necessary parties and claim of the petitioners for reopening of the main ceiling case for the purpose of exclusion of the lands in question could not have been appropriately decided by the respondent no.2. Otherwise also the petitioners failed to produce the relevant documents in support of their claim to have purchased the lands under dispute from the rightful owner or the landholder. Otherwise also the petitioners failed to produce the relevant documents in support of their claim to have purchased the lands under dispute from the rightful owner or the landholder. The petitioners claim to be the purchasers of the lands in question from altogether third person, who appears to have no legal right to make such transfer. In that view of the matter, the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act has rightly been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.01.2007 (Annexure-8). 7. In the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also, neither the landlord Bamdeo Singh nor the vendors of the petitioners have been impleaded as parties. The present writ petition also suffers from non-joinder of the necessary parties. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been specifically stated in paragraph-4(IV) that the landholder did not admit in his objection petition filed under Section 10(3) of the Land Ceiling Act in the aforesaid land ceiling case that he had ever sold any land either to the ancestors of the petitioners or to their vendor. Though a rejoinder petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, but there is no denial of the aforesaid assertions made on behalf of the respondents in the counter-affidavit filed on their behalf. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that though the lands in question were belonging to the landholder – Bamdeo Singh, and were declared surplus in the aforesaid land ceiling case, yet petitioners claimed exclusion of the said land from the main ceiling case on the ground of purchase made by them or their ancestors from the stranger, which has rightly been rejected. 9. For the reasons recorded above, no case for interference is made out by the petitioners, as a result thereof the writ petition has to fail, and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.