ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notification dated 26.11.2011 issued under Section 10 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1961”) wherein an area of 80.624 acres of land of the petitioner within Mouza Ranchi, Lalpur, Kanke, Chandri, Tiril, Bariatu, Gadi (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) has been included in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1981-82. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4 - the Additional Collector, Lohardaga, whereby the said authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it under the Act, 1961, has annulled the transfer of land to the beneficiaries in whose name the said land have been settled in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1961. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that M/s Ranchi Zamindari Limited owned and possessed agricultural land as well as the land which were used purely for non-agricultural purposes. Out of the said land, various transfers were made to different persons, companies’ etc. till the year 1962 and the names of the transferees were duly mutated in the revenue records and the transferees have been paying rent of their respective land to the State Government. The name of M/s Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. was subsequently changed to M/s Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Ltd. (the present petitioner). In the year 1973, a proceeding was initiated at the behest of the then Additional Collector, Lohardaga which was registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74 and vide notification no. 139/Ceiling dated 19.11.1976 published in the official gazette on 01.12.1976, altogether 1382 acres of land (approximately) situated at different villages was declared surplus. One M/s Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. Ranchi challenged the said notification with respect to 735.94 acres of the aforesaid land belonging to the said company by filing a writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court being CWJC No. 84 of 1977(R). One M/s Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. Ranchi challenged the said notification with respect to 735.94 acres of the aforesaid land belonging to the said company by filing a writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court being CWJC No. 84 of 1977(R). The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10.08.1979 by quashing the impugned notification to the extent of the subject matter of the writ petition, however, with a liberty to the revenue authority to issue notice to M/s Chotanagpur General Trading Company Ltd. treating it as a land holder and then to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of fixation of its surplus land, if any. Thereafter, a fresh proceeding was initiated vide Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82, however, in the said proceeding, the said land of the petitioner was also included. Since, in terms with the order passed by the Board of Revenue to exercise option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 was not being implemented, the petitioner also moved before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court by filing CWJC No. 2157 of 1989(R), wherein vide order dated 14.12.1989, the petitioner was directed to approach the Board of Revenue for initiation of contempt proceeding for non-implementation of the order dated 25.04.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh petition on 20.12.1989 exercising option as provided under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 and pursuant thereto, the then Additional Collector, Lohardaga allowed the petitioner to exercise its option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner also filed a list of land which it wanted to retain. The State Government having received the option of the petitioner, vide memo no. 772 dated 01.09.1995 informed it that out of the option exercised by it, 8.27 acres of land had already been acquired by various land holders and residential houses have been constructed, thus requested the petitioner to delete the same from the list of land for which the petitioner had exercised the option. The petitioner having received the letter of the State Government, deleted the land vide petition dated 28.09.1995 which were disputed and the said fact was so informed to the State Government by giving another option for allocation of land and the said matter is still pending. In the meantime, on 16.02.2012, the petitioner was served with a memo bearing no. The petitioner having received the letter of the State Government, deleted the land vide petition dated 28.09.1995 which were disputed and the said fact was so informed to the State Government by giving another option for allocation of land and the said matter is still pending. In the meantime, on 16.02.2012, the petitioner was served with a memo bearing no. 957 dated 28.11.2011 issued by the respondent no. 4 annexing the copies of the notification dated 26.11.2011 and 29.11.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4, whereby the transfers of land made by the petitioner were held invalid and the Circle Officer, Kudu/Kisko and Bhandra were directed to cancel the jamabandi and enter the same in Register-II. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification dated 26.11.2011 as also the order dated 29.11.2011 are prima facie illegal and have been issued without any application of mind inasmuch as on the one hand, the petitioner has been given benefit to exercise option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 under Land Ceiling Case No. 240/1973-74, on the other hand, the case of the petitioner has been arbitrarily clubbed with Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82 which was initiated with regard to verification and determination of surplus land, if any, in connection with 735.94 acres of land belonging to M/s Chhotanagpur General Trading Company. It is further submitted that the notification dated 01.12.1976 was issued under Section 15 of the Act, 1961 by virtue of which 1382.175 acres of land specified therein having been declared surplus, were notified for acquisition and vested to the State. The petitioner did not challenge the said notification except to the extent of exercising option under Section 9 of the Act, 1961 as a land holder to retain smaller part of the land. It is also submitted that the lands situated within Ranchi Municipal Corporation and urban agglomeration to the extent of 80 acres have been drawn under the Act, 1961 which has been promulgated for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of agricultural land, and therefore, drawing the proceeding under the Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. It is also submitted that the lands situated within Ranchi Municipal Corporation and urban agglomeration to the extent of 80 acres have been drawn under the Act, 1961 which has been promulgated for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of agricultural land, and therefore, drawing the proceeding under the Act, 1961 is without jurisdiction and contrary to law. For declaring the ceiling of urban land, another enactment namely, the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1976”) has been promulgated and the scope of the Act, 1976 is with respect to urban land excluding the agricultural land. It is further submitted that vide notification dated 08.03.1981 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, it has been explained that the urban land/municipality land shall be outside the purview of the Act, 1961. It is further submitted that vide notification dated 02.03.2012 issued by the Department of Urban Development, Government of Jharkhand, the land of Mouza-Bariatu, Gadi, Tiril, Lalpur, Chadri and Ranchi have been declared as urban land. The land in question are situated well within the periphery of Ranchi city and are well within the local limits of Ranchi Municipal Corporation since inception which are being used for residential as well as commercial purposes. It is further submitted that the impugned order and notification are also dehors the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, it is well settled proposition of law that any authority who passes an order involving civil consequence is required to give notice to the affected parties. The report of the Circle Officers can not solely form part of initiation of any proceeding, rather it is the entry in the Register-II which is mandatorily to be looked into for the purpose of initiation of such proceeding. 4. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that the Act, 1961 was enacted with a motto to acquire surplus land to be further allotted to the landless persons or to be used for the other public purposes. It is further submitted that any transfer made by the land holder even after 22.10.1959 cannot be ignored and the proceeding can be initiated as per the provisions of the Act, 1961 to annul the transfer. It is further submitted that any transfer made by the land holder even after 22.10.1959 cannot be ignored and the proceeding can be initiated as per the provisions of the Act, 1961 to annul the transfer. The petitioner being the successor of M/s Ranchi Zamindari Ltd and the land held by the petitioner was transferred to it in the year 1962 clearly indicates that the land was transferred by M/s Ranchi Zamindari Ltd. to the petitioner just to frustrate the purposes of the Act, 1961. It is further submitted that since initiation of Land Ceiling Case No. 01/1981-82 and issuance of notice in pursuance thereto, the present land ceiling matter has been pending for consideration. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the matter before the respondent no. 4, the land in question were transferred to one or the other person which could not have been done and it was also incumbent upon the buyers to verify that the land being purchased by them are not in dispute and are free from all encumbrances. The said lands have thus been transferred without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority. The respondent no. 5 - the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lohardaga, vide his letter no. 449/Ra dated 06.09.2008 informed the respondent no. 3 - the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga that the land under Khata Nos. 1, 4 and 121 have been sold on the basis of forged documents. It is further submitted that earlier, Suit No. 240 of 1973-74 was instituted and the respondent no. 4 issued show cause notice dated 10.08.1976 to M/s Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Ltd., Ranchi (the petitioner) as to why the land were sold after 22.10.1959 without prior permission of the Collector in violation of the provisions of the Act, 1961. However, The petitioner could not clarify the position by showing cause as to why the land were sold after the aforesaid date without prior permission of the competent authority. It is also submitted that just to defeat the provisions of the Act, 1961 and for illegal gain, the petitioner sold the land without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority, therefore the said transfer has been ordered to be cancelled with a direction to remove the petitioner’s name from Register II i.e., the Record of Right. It is also submitted that just to defeat the provisions of the Act, 1961 and for illegal gain, the petitioner sold the land without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority, therefore the said transfer has been ordered to be cancelled with a direction to remove the petitioner’s name from Register II i.e., the Record of Right. It is a settled law that mere an entry in Register II and paying rent for the land does not make a person the rightful owner. If certain mistake or fraud is detected, the entry made in Register II can be rectified and payment of rent for the land can be ordered to be stopped. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification dated 26.11.2011 and the order dated 29.11.2011 primarily on two grounds; first, that the said land has arbitrarily been clubbed in the proceeding initiated only with respect to M/s Chhotanagpur General Company Limited to the extent of 735.94 acre and second that the said land comes under the urban area i.e. within Ranchi Municipal Corporation and thus the proceeding under the Act, 1961 is not maintainable for the same. 6. So far as the first ground of challenge is concerned, on perusal of record, it appears that earlier a proceeding under the Act, 1961 was initiated against the petitioner vide Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74 and thereafter vide notification dated 19.11.1976, 1382 acres of lands situated at Lohardaga, Kuru, Kisko and Bero, were declared as surplus land treating the same to be the property of Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Limited, Ranchi (the petitioner herein). The said notification was challenged by M/s Chotanagpur General Company Limited by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 84 of 1977(R) before the Ranchi Bench of Patna High Court claiming that the land having an area of 735.94 acres was purchased by it in the year 1948 and thus, had acquired proprietary right upon the same, however, the said land was treated as the land of Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Limited Ranchi and was finally declared as surplus land without giving any opportunity of hearing to it. The High Court vide order dated 10.08.1979 held as follows: “4. The High Court vide order dated 10.08.1979 held as follows: “4. The declaration of the surplus area in so far as is claimed by the petitioner is concerned cannot be allowed to stand. The impugned notification as contained in annexure ‘5’ is accordingly quashed to the extent that it will not affect the petitioner’s interest in the land claimed by the petitioner. It will, of course, be opened for the competent Revenue Authority to issue notice under section 8 of the Act against the petitioner treating him as a land holder and then to proceed in accordance with law for the purpose of fixation of its surplus land, if any. 5. This application is accordingly allowed and the impugned notification issued under section 15(1) of the Act as contained in annexure ‘5’ is hereby quashed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.” 7. On the perusal of the aforesaid order, it appears that the notification dated 01.12.1976 was quashed only to the extent of the claim of M/s Chotanagpur General Trading Company Limited, Ranchi for an area of 735.94 acres of land. So far the rest of the lands are concerned, the petitioner’s contention is that it never disputed the impugned notification, rather only claimed to exercise the right of retention of meagre part of land as provided under Section 9 of the Act, 1961. 8. It further appears that the land in question was not the part of the earlier proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74. Only at the time of initiation of the proceeding against M/s Chotanagpur General Trading Company Limited, about 80 acres of the land of the petitioner situated within the urban area of Ranchi was included in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1981-82. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pitambar Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2010) 13 SCC 453 . In the said case, a land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Pitambar Singh. A draft statement was made and published showing that Pitambar Singh was entitled to retain only 18 acres of land and thus the family was said to be holding 15.95 acres of land as surplus land. In the said case, a land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Pitambar Singh. A draft statement was made and published showing that Pitambar Singh was entitled to retain only 18 acres of land and thus the family was said to be holding 15.95 acres of land as surplus land. Pitambar Singh filed objection to the draft statement claiming that his son Ravindra Kumar Singh was major and hence he was also entitled to his own share and he could not have been held to be the member of his family. However, the said objection was rejected against which Pitambar Singh preferred an appeal which was also dismissed. However, the revision filed by Pitambar Singh was allowed and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority who vide order dated 15.12.1977 held that Rabindra Kumar Singh was major on 09.09.1970, hence he was entitled to be treated as a separate family. No revision was filed by the State against the order dated 15.12.1977, however, new draft statement was also not published in accordance with the order dated 15.12.1977. In the meantime, by reasons of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982, two Sections being Section 32-A and 32-B were introduced. The State Government published a fresh draft statement and a re-determination was made under Section 4-A of the Act, 1961 as amended by the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982. Pitambar Singh challenged the fresh draft statement before the Patna High Court. The learned Singh Judge held that no final publication of the draft statement under Section 11(1) was published, hence the authority was justified in disposing of the proceeding afresh in accordance with the amended provision. The learned Division Bench in LPA also held that since there was no final publication made on the basis of the order dated 15.12.1977 and in the meantime Section 32-B came into operation and, therefore, initiation of fresh proceedings in terms with the amended section was justified. The judgments of the Patna High Court having been challenged by Pitambar Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after observing the aforesaid facts held as under: 17. In our opinion, this is a completely erroneous view. The judgments of the Patna High Court having been challenged by Pitambar Singh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after observing the aforesaid facts held as under: 17. In our opinion, this is a completely erroneous view. In fact, after the order dated 15.12.1977 was passed, it was not for the appellants to do anything, but it was the duty of the State Government to issue a final draft statement on the basis of that order and then to publish it in the light of the order dated 15.12.1977, which duty emanated from the positive language of Section 11(1) of the Ceiling Act. It is not at all the fault of the appellant landholders if the State Government did not do anything for four years i.e. between 16.12.1977 and 9.4.1981 when the Amendment Act came into force. Though the inaction on the part of the State Government is noted by the High Court, the Division Bench refused to act upon it and went on to observe: “Thus although there is no just reason for the Collector not finally publishing the draft statement immediately after the appellate order dated 15.12.1977 was passed, but still then in view of the mandate contained in Section 32-B of the Act, fresh proceeding became necessary in respect of the land in question.” 18. We do not approve of such approach as it would be patently unjust to give a premium to the State Government on its inaction. We reiterate that the appellants had nothing to do with the creating or publishing of the draft statement. It was the duty of the State Government. If the State Government did not follow its duty, it has to suffer and the appellants cannot be made to suffer on account of the inaction shown by the State Government either deliberately or otherwise. We, therefore, under the circumstances, hold that Section 32-B could not have been relied upon by the State Government and both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have erred in legalising the subsequent reopening of the proceedings, which had come to a dead end on 15.12.1977. 10. It may thus be construed that reopening of any land ceiling proceeding which has come to a dead end is not permissible. 10. It may thus be construed that reopening of any land ceiling proceeding which has come to a dead end is not permissible. In the facts of the present case, it is crystal clear that so far the Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74 is concerned, the notification issued under Section 15 of the Act, 1961 had attained finality with respect to about 646 acres of land of the petitioner and the only claim of the petitioner upon the said land subsisting was with respect to its claim of retention under Section 9 of the Act, 1961. Thus, I am of the considered view that the respondents arbitrarily reopened the case of the petitioner by including the land in question in the subsequent proceeding of M/s Chotanagpur General Trading Company Limited. 11. So far the second ground of challenge made to the impugned notification and order is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the notification dated 08.03.1981 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, whereby it was clarified that the urban land/municipality land would be outside the purview of the Act, 1961. 12. On perusal of the relevant provisions of the two enactments i.e., the Act, 1961 and the Act, 1976, it would emerge that while the Act, 1961 deals with ceiling of land used or capable of being used for agriculture or horticulture purposes, the Act, 1976 deals with ceiling of urban land not being used for the purpose of agriculture. It is, therefore, apparent that said two enactments operate independent of each other and deal with two distinct types of land. The former is concerned with what may be broadly called as agricultural land while the later deals primarily with urban land which excludes the land mainly used for the purpose of agriculture. 13. The specific stand of the petitioner is that the land in question are situated at Mouza Ranchi, Lalpur, Kanke, Chadri, Tiril, Bariatu, Gadi which are within Ranchi Municipal Corporation/Urban agglomeration and are being used for residential as well as commercial purposes. The said factual stand of the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents. 13. The specific stand of the petitioner is that the land in question are situated at Mouza Ranchi, Lalpur, Kanke, Chadri, Tiril, Bariatu, Gadi which are within Ranchi Municipal Corporation/Urban agglomeration and are being used for residential as well as commercial purposes. The said factual stand of the petitioner has not been controverted by the respondents. Thus, I find substance in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have exceeded their jurisdiction in including the urban land of the petitioner mainly used for residential and commercial purpose, in a proceeding initiated under the Act, 1961. Even if it is assumed that there is some connection between the proceeding of Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74 and Land Ceiling Case No. 01 of 1981-82, the said land was not part of the proceeding of Land Ceiling Case No. 240 of 1973-74 and thus, it was not appropriate for the respondents to club both the cases and include the said land in the subsequent ceiling proceeding. 14. Moreover, it also appears from the record that the said land was transferred in favour of M/s Ranchi Zamindari Limited in the year 1938-48 before the commencement of the Act, 1961. It is the specific stand of the petitioner that the name of Ranchi Zamindari Limited was subsequently changed as M/s Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Limited (the petitioner herein). To support the said contention, the petitioner has brought on record a copy of the certificate of incorporation consequent to the change of name vide Annexure-14 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 22.10.2018 which reflects that the name of Ranchi Zamindari Limited was subsequently changed as Ranchi Enterprises and Properties Limited. Though the claim of the respondent-State is that the petitioner is a separate entity to that of Ranchi Zamindari Limited and the said land was transferred to the petitioner just to defeat the provisions of the Act, 1961, the respondent-State has failed to controvert the certificate of incorporation annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-14 to the rejoinder affidavit. Thus, the argument of the learned Advocate General has no leg to stand. 15. Under the aforesaid fact and circumstance, the impugned notification dated 26.11.2011 is quashed to the extent of 80.624 acres of the land of the petitioner situated at different parts of Ranchi specifically described at page no. 69 to 71 of the writ petition. Thus, the argument of the learned Advocate General has no leg to stand. 15. Under the aforesaid fact and circumstance, the impugned notification dated 26.11.2011 is quashed to the extent of 80.624 acres of the land of the petitioner situated at different parts of Ranchi specifically described at page no. 69 to 71 of the writ petition. Consequently, the order dated 29.11.2011 passed by the respondent no. 4 annulling the transfer of the said land is also quashed. 16. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.