Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 679 (PAT)

Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. State of Bihar

2025-07-10

RAJIV ROY

body2025
Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard the parties. (A) PRAYER: 2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the following relief(s): – “For issuance of an appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna In BLT Case No. 1111 of 2024 whereby the Hon'ble chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna has affirmed the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by Learned Chairman Cum Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar Patna in Surplus Case No. 16 of 2022 whereby the Respondent no. 2 has dismissed the case filed by petitioners by imposing cost of Rs. one Lakh with directing that same should be deposited with the Board of Revenue in 15 days and he also affirmed the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by Learned Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur Respondent no.3 in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 35 of 2019 (Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others vs. the State of Bihar) whereby Respondent no.3 affirmed the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by Learned Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah in Ceiling case No. 60 of 1973-74 (though the objection was filed by petitioners as well as petitioners' Mother and Grandmother in Ceiling Case No. 79 of 1973- 74) whereby the Learned Collector has dismissed the claim of petitioners and directed for publishing the Final publication under Section 11(1) of the Ceiling Act. (II) For issuance of an appropriate writ\ writs, order\orders, direction directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to exclude the land of petitioners from the Ceiling proceedings by cancelling the gazette notification dated 31.01.2002 to the extent to the land of the petitioners only and further restrain the respondents authorities from distributing the land in question as well as interference in the physical possession of petitioners during the pendency of present case before this Hon'ble High Court.” (B) FACTS: 3. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are sons while the petitioner no. 3 is the grandson of the late Sushila Devi. 4. The matter relates to the lands situated under the Circle Office, Bagaha-2 in the district of West Champaran and the original land holder is/was Shatrumardan Shahi. The claim of the petitioners is/are that some of the lands of Shatrumardan Shahi was settled with one Panna Ji in the year 1948 before the vesting of the lands with the State of Bihar. 5. The claim of the petitioners is/are that some of the lands of Shatrumardan Shahi was settled with one Panna Ji in the year 1948 before the vesting of the lands with the State of Bihar. 5. The details of the land is/are as follows: – “Khata No. 3, Khesra No. 384, 385 and 386, area 6 bigha, 10 Katha, 10 dhur situated in the village and P.S. Semra, District – West Champaran.” 6. The case of the petitioners is/are that Panna Ji’s son, Ashok Singh later executed power of attorney in favour of the son of the Shatrumardan Shahi namely Ran Vijay Shahi with regard to the land in question. 7. The further case is that Ran Vijay Shahi in turn sold the land to the mother of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely late Sushila Devi on 23.06.1970 and the family also got their names entered into revenue records in the year 1994-95. 8. A Ceiling Proceeding 60 of 1973-74 was continuing in the name of Satrumardan Shahi which later came to be bifurcated into three different ceiling cases namely (i) LC case no. 78/1973-74(State vs. Jay Kumar Sahi), (ii) LC case no. 79/1973-74 (State vs Ran Vijay Sahi), (iii) LC case no. 60/1973-74 (Satrumardan Sahi). 9. However, after the death of Satrumardan Shahi in the year 1981, it got amalgamated again as Land Ceiling Case No. 60 of 1973-74 with two other cases. 10. Earlier, an order came to be passed by the Additional Collector, West Champaran on 26.02.1976 in L.C. Case no. 60 of 1973-74. The Collector, West Champaran affirmed the order vide an order dated 10.02.1977. The matter went to the Board of Revenue, Bihar vide Case no. 371 of 1977 (Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar) and vide an order dated 27.05.1977, the matter was remanded back to the Additional Collector, West Champaran for fresh consideration in accordance with law. 11. The petitioners journey in the present case starts with the Mutation case no. 337 of 1994-95 when the Circle Office created jamabandi no. 670 in the name of late Sushila Devi for the lands purchased in the year 1970. Thus the first rent receipt that the petitioners had possesses is of the year 1994-95. 12. 11. The petitioners journey in the present case starts with the Mutation case no. 337 of 1994-95 when the Circle Office created jamabandi no. 670 in the name of late Sushila Devi for the lands purchased in the year 1970. Thus the first rent receipt that the petitioners had possesses is of the year 1994-95. 12. In the another round of litigation in R.A. Case No. 32 of 1997-98 (Ran Vijay Shahi vs The State of Bihar), the Collector, West Champaran vide an order dated 28.01.2002 rejected the claims of the land holders including those who claimed to have purchased the lands from their vendors. This followed the gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling) Act, 1961 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’) on 31.1.2002. 13. The Landholders filed CWJC no. 2271 of 2002 and Patna High Court sent the matter to the Board of Revenue, Bihar vide an order dated 14.02.2002. 14. Thereafter the matter once again travelled to Patna High Court in CWJC No. 8890 of 2004 (Ran Vijay Shahi vs. State of Bihar) and on 21.05.2007, the matter was remanded to the Collector, West Champaran for its expeditious disposal. (the copy of the order has not been brought on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it was only during the hearing that upon query, a copy was provided for the perusal of the Court) 15. The petitioners preferred their objections on 09.10.2018 before the Collector, West Champaran. 16. The Collector, West Champaran thereafter took up the Land Ceiling Case No. 60 of 1973-74 (Shatrumardan Shahi vs State) in which all the stake holders including the petitioners were heard. The petitioners preferred their objections on 09.10.2018 before the Collector, West Champaran. 16. The Collector, West Champaran thereafter took up the Land Ceiling Case No. 60 of 1973-74 (Shatrumardan Shahi vs State) in which all the stake holders including the petitioners were heard. The voluminous order was passed on 22.01.2019 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition) rejecting the claim and the relevant paragraphs relating to the petitioners is/are recorded hereinbelow: – ^^fnukad&05-10-18 dks lR; izdk'k frokjh] firk&LoŒ lquhrk nsoh] ifr&Loñ lkjnk frokjh] lñ dFkufg;k] Fkkuk&nsofjk] orZeku irk&lsejk ds }kjk [kkrk lañ&03] [ksljk lañ 384] 385 ,oa 386 dk jdck 6 ch?kk] 10 dB~Bk] 10 èkwj ds lanHkZ esa nkok fd;k x;k gSA buds }kjk fnukad&23-06-70 dks Hkwfe Ø; gksuk cryk;k x;k gS fd] fdarq nkos ds leFkZu esa dksbZ yxku jlhn nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gSA blh lanHkZ esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk State of U.P. vs. District Judge, AIR 1979 SC 53 in obserb fd;k x;k gS fd “It is settled law that mutation entries are only for the purpose of enabling the State Li"V gS fd ;g fucaèku Hkwgncanh vfèkfu;e dks izHkkfor djus dh fu;r ls fd;k x;k ÑR; gSA blh ifjizs{; esa Ram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1990 Pat. 137 : 1990 (1) BLJR 229 : 1990 (2) PLJR 3 : 1990 (1) BLJ 252 es m)fjr gS fd “Actual posession of the land is not necessary to constitute a person as Raiyat. 137 : 1990 (1) BLJR 229 : 1990 (2) PLJR 3 : 1990 (1) BLJ 252 es m)fjr gS fd “Actual posession of the land is not necessary to constitute a person as Raiyat. A raiyat, as defined, means a person holding land for the purpose of cultivating himself or by the members of his family.” bl ekeys esa rks vkiwfrdrkZ dk n[ky&dCtk Hkh Hkwfe ij ugha gSA Qyr% buds nkos dk vLohÑr fd;k tkrk gSA fnukad&09-10-18 dks v'kksd dqekj frokjh] foiqy dqekj frokjh] lR;izdk'k frokjh] ekrk&Loñ lq'khyk nsoh] lkñ c'kjFkiqj] xksj[kiqj] 'kfDruxj dkWyksuh] Fkkuk&'kkgiqj] ftyk&xksj[kiqj ds }kjk fuEukafdr Hkwfe ds lanHkZ esa vkifr ntZ djk;k x;k gS & nkok fd, tk jgs Hkwfe dk fooj.k& ekStk [kkrk [ksljk jdck lsejk 03 384 1-18-10 03 384 4-0-0 03 385 0-8-0-10 386 0-3-10-0 buds }kjk vius nkos ds leFkZu esa dksbZ Hkh fucafèkr nLrkost vFkok yxku jlhn dh Nk;kizfr nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS] ftlls budk nkok izekf.kr gks ldsA blds vfrfjDr ;g Hkh ,d rF; gS fd bl dk;kZy; ds }kjk fuxZr uksfVl ds vkyksd esa rFkkdfFkr iUuk th vFkok buds okfjlku ds }kjk i{k ugha izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA Qyr% buds nkos dks vLohÑr fd;k tkrk gSA 17. The Collector, West Champaran thereafter concluded the matter as follows: fuxZr uksfVl ds vkyksd esa ;k rks dqN mifLFkr ugha gq,] vkSj tks mifLFkr gq, muds }kjk dksbZ cogent document vius leFkZu esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA tSlk dh iwoZ esa mfYyf[kr gS fd vfèkdr ys[;kdkjh fcgkj jkT; ds ckgj ds gSa] rFkk bUgsa ,d gh frfFk esa cgqrsjs Hkwfe;ksa dk fucaèku fd;k x;k gSA blds lanHkZ esa dksbZ rdZ ugh fn;k x;k gSA fofHkUu vkifÙkdrkZvksa ds }kjk lefiZr vkifÙk dh foospuk ds Øe esa ;g Hkh ik;k x;k fd ^^in~ek nsoh** tks fd fucaèku fd, tkus ds vofèk esa ukckfyx Fkha] dh vksj ls muds firk ds }kjk vfèkdrj Hkwfe dk fucaèku fd;k x;k gSA vkifÙkdrkZvksa ds }kjk ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd “in need of money, land holder executed deed on behalf of his minor daughter Padma Devi” ;g vius vki esa ,d fopkj.kh; rF; gS fd vkf[kj dkSu lh ifjfLFkfr;ka vpkud ls mRiUu gks xbZ gS brus cM+s Hkwèkkjh dks vpkud ls yxkrkj frfFk;ksa esa ¼,d gh frfFk dks dbZ ckj½ Hkwfe;ka ¼cM+s cM+s VqdM+ksa esa½ fcØh djus dh vko';drk vk iM+hA uk dsoy Hkwèkkjh ds }kjk Lo;a] cfYd vius iq=h ds Guardian ds gSfl;r ls ,oa budh vksj ls Power of Autorny ds ekè;e ls dbZ;ksa ds }kjk Hkwfe dh fcØh dh xbZ gSA Øsrk Hkh ,sls O;fDr gS fd ftudk dksbZ existence proof ugha fd;k x;k gS] tSls iUuk th] jaxth] uhye th] bR;kfn] bu yksxksa dk irk fcgkj jkT; ds ckgj xqtjkr] dksydkrk] mÙkj izns'k dk gS] blds lanHkZ esa dksbZ rdZ ugha fn;k x;k gSA dbZ vU; ys{;kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk [kqn rks Hkwfe dk transaction fd;k gh x;k gS] cfYd viuh vksj ls dbZ;ksa dks tehu dh fcØh ds fy, Power of Autorny/ eq[rkjukek vke Hkh fn;k x;k gSA Power of Autorny Hkh vius Collusive O;fDr dks fn;k x;k gSA Li"V gS fd Hkwèkkjh ds }kjk ,d lksph≤>h lkft'k ds rgr ek=k vfèkfu;e ds izkoèkkuksa dks foQy djus dh dqfVy ea'kk ls ,sls d`R; fd, x, gSA bl lanHkZ esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk State of UP vs. Amar Singh esa observe (reportable as State vs. Amar Singh (1997) 1 SCC (734 ) fd;k x;k gS fd& “The Supreme court was of the opinion that the land holder claiming that the transfers made by him, had not been made to defeat the provisions of ceiling laws, must successfully discharged the burden of proof lying on him to show that the transfers made were bonafide and seem transactions for the purpose of avoiding or defeating the provisions of land ceiling Act. ;fn “benami transaction” dh ifjHkk"kk THE PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS ACT, 1988 ds rgr ns[kh tk, rks blesa vafdr gS fd “(A) a transaction or an arrangement – (a) where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person; and (b) the property is held for the immediate or future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration; and “benamidar” dh ifjHkk"kk ns[kh tk, rks vafdr gS fd “a person or a fictitious person, as the case may be, in whose name the benami property is transferred or held and includes a person who lends his name;” blds vfrfjDr vfèkfu;e esa izkoèkkfur gS fd “Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgement, decree or order of any court or authority the Collector shall have power to; make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land-holder whether by a registered instrument or otherwise made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining, benami or farzi land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annual such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transferor for the purposes of determining the ceiling area he may hold under this Section.” mDr ls Li"V gS fd Hkwèkkjh ,oa vkifÙk drkZ vius nkos dks iq"V djus esa vlQy jgs gSA 10- ofl;rukek&Hkwèkkjh dh vkifÙk gS fd muds nknk 'k=kqenZu 'kkgh ds }kjk fnukad&24-02-1982 ¼viuh e`R;q ds Msढ+ ekg iwoZ½ ,d olh;rukek execute fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds rgr Ñf"k ;ksX; Hkwfe dks bUgs èkkfjr djus dk vfèkdkj fn;k x;k ,oa xSj Ñf"k ;ksX; Hkwfe;ksa dks vU; ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks èkkfjr djus dk vfèkdkj fn;k x;kA bl ofl;rukek dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk Testamentary okn la[;k&01@85 ds }kjk Probate fd;k x;k gSA bldh Nk;kizfr ek=k nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd Hkwèkkjh dh ofl;rukek dh ewy izfr nkf[ky djus dk vkns'k o"kZ 2015 esa gh fn;k x;k Fkk] fdarq buds }kjk vkns'k ikfjr fd, tkus rd nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkSj uk gh buds }kjk vius }kjk nkok fd, tk jgs Hkwfe;ksa dks gh Point out fd;k x;k gSA ;gka Li"V djuk vko';d gS fd ofl;rukek ds vuqlkj gh vfèklwpuk dk izdk'ku fd;k x;k gSA blfy, budk rdZ vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA 11- Hkwèkkjh dh ;g Hkh vkifÙk gS fd Hkwnku ;K dfefV dks dbZ lkjh Hkwfe;ksa nku nh xbZ Fkh] bls Hkh 'kkfey dj fy;k x;k gS] fdUrq blds lanHkZ esa nku ls lacafèkr dkxtkr nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;gka Li"V dj nsuk vko';d gS fd ;fn dksbZ O;fDr Hkwnku ;K dfefV okyh Hkwfe ij clk, x, gS] rks Hkh muds }kjk nkok ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh fopkj.kh; rF; gS fd buds }kjk Hkwnku dfefV dks Hkwfe nku dh Hkh xbZ gksrh rks mls vuqlwph&lh esa 'kkfey dj vafre :i ls vfèklwfpr fd;k tk,xk] tks lq;ksX; Js.kh ds xjhc Hkwfeghuksa ds chp forj.k ds dke vk,xkA 12- Hkwnku ;K dfEkfV dks nku dh Hkwfe ,oa LosPNk ls ljs.Mj dh xbZ Hkwfe ls lacafèkr lk{; izLrqr djus dk vkns'k ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds gh }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad& 21-05-2007 ds ekè;e ls fn;k x;k gS] fdarq dksbZ Hkh dkxtkr izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA dsoy vkifÙk vkosnu i= esa vafdr dj nsus ek=k ls fdlh mís'; dh iwfrZ ugha gksrh gSA 13- Hkwèkkjh dh vkifÙk ;g Hkh gS fd iwoZ Hkwèkkjh ds }kjk cguksa dks o"kZ 1948 esa iV~Vk ds ekè;e ls Hkwfe cUnkscLr dh xbZ FkhA bUgsa o"kZ 2015 esa gh cUnkscLrh iV~Vk dh Nk;kizfr nkf[ky djus dk vkns'k fn;k x;k] fdarq nkf[ky ugha fd;k tk ldkA ,slh Hkwfe;ksa dks Hkh Point out ugha fd;k x;k gS] vkSj u gh dksbZ nkok fd;k x;k gSA 14- Hkwfe ds oxhZdj.k ds lanHkZ esa vkifÙk dh xbZ gS] fdarq ;gka Li"V dj nsuk vko';d gS fd Hkwfe dk oxhZdj.k] vapy vfèkdkjh ds }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu ds vkèkkj ij vafdr fd;k x;k gSA vkifÙk esa dksbZ rdZ ugha fn;k x;k gS] vkSj uk gh dksbZ Bksl dkxtkr nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA blfy, budh ;g vkifÙk Hkh fujkèkkj gSA 15- Hkwèkkjh dh ;g Hkh vkifÙk gS fd vU; O;fDr;ksa ds Hkwfe dks Hkh bl okn esa 'kkfey dj fy;k x;k gSA buds }kjk blds lanHkZ esa dksbZ izek.k ;k losZ [kfr;ku dh izfr nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;fn eku Hkh fy;k tk,] rks Hkh blds fy, vfèklwpuk ds fo:) vkifÙk vkgwr dh xbZ] fdarq dqN dks NksM+dj fdUgha ds Hkh }kjk vkifÙk ntZ ugha djkbZ xbZA budh ;g vkifÙk Hkh fujkèkkj gSA 16- ikjl Bkdqj ,oa vU; dh vksj ls fo}ku vfèkoDrk Jh v'kksd 'kekZ ds }kjk Indian Evidence Act dh èkkjk&90 dk gokyk nsdj 30 lky iqjkus dkxtkrksa dks lgh ekuus dk vuqjksèk fd;k x;k ,oa rdZ fn;k x;k fd mDr ds vkyksd esa ;s dkxtkr Null & Void gksus yk;d ugha gSA Indian Evidence Act dh èkkjk&90 esa m)fjr gS fd “Presumption as to documents thirty years old.- Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty eyars old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.” bl lanHkZ esa ;fn ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk ikfjr vkns'k Sri Lakni Bauran And Others vs. Sri Padma Kanta Kalita and Ors. (Reportable as Sri Lakni Baruan And Others vs Sri Padma Kanta Kalita & Ors. (1996) INSC 321 (26th Februrary 1996) esa m)fjr gS fd “In the facts of this case, the presumption under Section 90 was not available on the certified copy produced by the defendants and in our view, the High Court is justified in refusing to given such presumption in favour of the defendants. We may also indicate that it is the discretion of the Court to refuse to give such presumption in favour of a party, if otherwise, there is occasion to doubt due execution of the document in question. The plaintiff’s definite case was that the deed of sale in favour of Holiram was a forged and fabricated document. In the aforesaid facts, there was a requirement to produce the original copy so that the question of due execution by plaintiff no. 1 could have been contested by the parties. The plaintiff’s definite case was that the deed of sale in favour of Holiram was a forged and fabricated document. In the aforesaid facts, there was a requirement to produce the original copy so that the question of due execution by plaintiff no. 1 could have been contested by the parties. In the aforesaid facts, no interference is called for in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed with cost.” vr% mijksDr ds vkyksd esa buds }kjk fn, x, rdZ dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA 17- ;g Hkh vafdr djuk lfefpu gksxk fd ifjokj esa èkkj.k djus gsrq fn, x, NwV ds fcanw ij Hkwèkkjh ds }kjk dksbZ vkifÙk ugha fd;k x;k gSA 18- mijksDr vkns'k esa dbZ rF;] ik'oZ vofèk esa rRdkyhu lekgrkZ ds }kjk blh ekeys esa ikfjr vkns'k ds leku gks ldrs gSa] pwafd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk bl lanHkZ esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd “so far as persons who were duly noticed are concerned, whether they appear or not, the matter as against them would stand concluded by earlier findings.” fu"d"kZ eSaus bl okn esa izkjEEk ls vc rd dh xbZ lHkh dk;Zokfg;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk le;≤ ij bu oknksa esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk@ekuuh; jktLo Ik"kZn] fcgkj] iVuk@vk;qDr] frjgqr izeaMy] eqtÝiQjiqj ds U;k;kns'kksa lfgr okn ds lkFk lac¼u,@iqjkus] ¼blfy, vafdr djuk iM+ jgk gS D;ksafd ;s dkxtkr ,slh fLFkfr esa gS] fd ;s gYds gkFkksa ls Hkh Nquk ek=k ls QV jgs gSa] bUgsa lgstuk nq"dj gSA½ dkxtkrksa dk voyksdu fd;kA ;g okn dkQh yEcs vlsZ ls vafre :i ls fu"iknu gsrq yafcr gSA ,slk ugha gS fd iwoZ esa bl okn dk fu"ikknu ugha gqvk gSA gqvk gS] fdUrq Hkwèkkjh ds izR;sd ckj bl U;k;ky; ds ikfjr vkns'k ds fo:) vihy nk;j djus dh izo`fÙk] dwVjfpr dj l`ftr dkxtkr] Hkwgncanh dh tfVy ,oa yach izfØ;k ds dkj.k ckj&ckj ;g okn bl U;k;ky; esa u, lhjs ls vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fcanq ij okil izkIr gks tkrk gS] vkSj ojh; U;k;ky;ksa ds vkns'k ds en~nsutj iqu% 1973 esa izkjEHk dh xbZ izfØ;k dks nqgjkuk ykteh gks tkrk gSA Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act dh tfVyrk ,oa yach izfØ;k dks nqgjkus ¼izfØ;kRed =qfV uk jg tk,½ ds Øe esa lky&nj&lky inkfèkdkjh dk LFkkukarj.k ,oa inLFkkiu Hkh oknksa ds yafcr jgus dk ,d cM+k dkj.k gSA D;ksafd u;s inkfèkdkjh }kjk okn dk iqufoZyksdu vko';d gS] vU;Fkk izfØ;kRed =kqfV jgus dh izcy laHkkouk cuh jgrh gSA blfy, esjs Hkh inLFkkiu ¼fnukad&03-08-2017½ ds i'pkr~ tc ;g okn izFke ckj fnukad&20-12-2017 dks esjs le{k miLFkkfir fd;k x;k] mlds mijkar ls eSaus Hkh bl okn dk xgurk ls voyksdu fd;k ,oa Hkwèkkjh ds }kjk nkf[ky vkifÙk;ksa dk ckjhdh ls voyksdu djus ds mijkar bldk fcanqokj tkap izfrosnu vapy vfèkdkjh] cxgk&2@ jkeuxj@ujdfV;kxat@xkSukgk ls ekaxk ,oa izfrosnu izkIr gksus ds mijkar ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ds vkns'k ds vkyksd esa vko';d dkjZokbZ;ka iw.kZ djus ds mijkar ls vc vkns'k ikfjr dj jgk gw¡A okn dks yafcr j[kus esa esjh vFkok iwoZ inkfèkdkfj;ksa dh dksbZ xyr ea'kk ugha jgh gSA bl okn esa ek=k Hkwèkkjh ds vkifÙk;ksa ds vkèkkj ij vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] fdarq ;g U;kf;d n`f"Vdks.k ls lgh ugha gksrkA eSaus bl okn esa Hkwgncanh vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk&10¼2½ ds izk:i izdk'ku ds fo:) Hkwèkkjh ,oa fofHkUu nLrkost èkkjd ¼tks&tks mifLFkr gq,½ ds }kjk nkf[ky vkifÙk;ksa dk voyksdu fd;k ,oa muds i{kksa dks dbZ frfFk;ksa dks foLr`r :i ls Hkh lqukA fnukad&22-01-2019 dks varrksxRok bl okn esa èkkjk 10¼3½ ds rgr lquokbZ iw.kZ gqbZA tks mifLFkr ugha gks lds] mUgsa mifLFkr jgus gsrq uksfVl ¼vke oks [kkl½ tkjh fd;k ,oa lwpuk dk izdk'ku nSfud lekpkj i=ksa lfgr ftyk ds osclkbZV ij Hkh djk;kA mijksDr foosfpr rF;ksa ds vkèkkj ij f'koukFk pkSèkjh dks jdck 03 dB~Bk 08 èkwj Hkwfe ,oa jktsUnz egrks dks dqy jdck 06 dB~Bk 10 èkwj Hkwfe] dqy 09 dB~Bk 18 èkwj vFkok 0-15 ,dM+ Hkwfe dh NwV LohÑr djus ds mijkar] Hkwèkkjh }kjk èkkfjr dqy tehu 2136-99 ,dM+ gksrk gSA blesa Hkwèkkjh dks prqFkZ Js.kh dh 30-00 ,dM+ Hkwfe ifjokj esa èkkj.k djus dh NwV nsdj 'ks"k 2106-99 ,dM+ Hkwfe vfèk'ks"k ?kksf"kr dh tkrh gSA rnuqlkj èkkjk&11¼1½ ds rgr vafre izdk'ku dh fooj.kh rS;kj dj 'kh?kz izLrqr djsaA fnukad&12-02-2019 dks j[ksaA ¼ys[kkfir ,oa la'kksfèkr½ Sd/- lekgrkZ] if'pe pEikj.k] csfr;k Sd/- lekgrkZ if'pe pEikj.k] csfr;k (emphasis added) 18. Aggrieved, the affected parties including the petitioners moved before the Court of Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 30 of 2019 (Shatrundam Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and analogous cases). The case of the petitioners was numbered 35/2019 (Ashok Kumar Tiwary and Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.). The Divisional Commissioner took up the matter and after extensively hearing all the parties and after perusing the records, vide an order dated 25.04.2022, affirmed the order of the Collector, West Champaran (Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition). 19. Paragraphs 110 and 113 to 117 relates to the petitioners and read as follows: – 110. The objection of Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwary and Satya Prakash Tiwary has been dealt on page no. 60 of the order while objection of Shri Satya Prakash Tiwary has been dealt on page 61 of the order. The Lower Court in both the cases has observed that the original sale documents of the vendors have not been submitted and only the subsequent sale documents have been submitted. Even in the Appellate Court only documents which have been submitted is the copy of the rent receipt issued in favour of Ram Ekbal Tiwary, Yoginath Tiwary, Satya Prakash Tiwary, Yugal Tiwary. Ilaichi Devi etc. The Lower Court has quoted the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of UP vs. District Judge, AIR 1979 SC 53 that "It is settled law that mutation entries are only for the purpose of enabling the state to collect revenue from the person in possession but it does not confer any titled to the land." The Lower Court has held that the purported registration by the different vendors is an act done to thwart the implementation of provisions of the Land Ceiling Act and has rejected the claim of the petitioners. In the absence of any sale deed or title deed the case of the appellants is not proven. Hence I do not find any reasons to differ with the order of the Lower Court. The appeal fails to succeed. (emphasis added) 113. Appeal case no. 35/19 Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Satya Prakash Tiwari and Bipul Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Bihar has been filed against the order of the Lower Court dated 22.01.2019. Hence I do not find any reasons to differ with the order of the Lower Court. The appeal fails to succeed. (emphasis added) 113. Appeal case no. 35/19 Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Satya Prakash Tiwari and Bipul Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Bihar has been filed against the order of the Lower Court dated 22.01.2019. The claim of the petitioners is that the mother of appellant 1 and 2 and grandmother of appellant 3 Sushila Devi had acquired 6 Bigha 10 Kattha 10 Dhur of land in Village -Semera bearing Khata No. 3, Khesara No. 384, 385 and 386 through a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1970 executed by Kumar Ranvijay Shahi who had power of attorney of Shri Ashok Kumar Singh S/o Late Panna Lal Jee and thereafter got possession of the said land. Shri Panna Lal Jee was recorded tenant of land along with other lands and his name was entered in Unchal Jamabandi. After purchase Sushila Devi got her name in mutated Unchal and behind to pay rent to the State of Bihar. The claim of the petitioner is that neither Shatrumardan Shahi nor Ajay Kumar Shahi nor Ranvijay Shahi (the three land lords) were raiyat of the aforesaid land. He has also submitted that Shatrumardan Shahi was the ex-land lord who had settled an area of 158 acres 54 dismil to Kumar Panna Jee @ Panna Lal Jee according jamabandi was created in the name of Kumar Panna Jee and also jamabandi return was submitted by ex-land lord in the name of Kumar Panna Jee against whose name Jamabandi was then created in the Unchal. Hence the appellants have objected to their land being included in the final publication done by Collector, West Champaran.” 114. In Support of the claim the appellant have submitted copy of three sale deeds all three dated 23.06.1970 (Deed no. 8233, Deed no. 8235 and Deed no. 8236) done by Kumar Ranvijay Shahi in Favour of Sushila Devi as well as copies of four rent receipts issued in the name of Sushila Devi From 1976 to 2007. The appellant was directed to submit copy of jamabandi return and rent receipt issued in favour of Panna Jee the original raiyat as claimed by the appellants. However, they were unable to do so. 115. The case of Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others has been dealt by the Lower Court on page no. The appellant was directed to submit copy of jamabandi return and rent receipt issued in favour of Panna Jee the original raiyat as claimed by the appellants. However, they were unable to do so. 115. The case of Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari and others has been dealt by the Lower Court on page no. 60 and 61 of the order. In the Lower Court both Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Satya Prakash Tiwari have failed to submit any rent receipt issued in the name of Sushila Devi as well as they have failed to submit documents supporting ownership of Shri Panna Jee. The Lower Court has observed the act registration has been done in order to affect the implementation of Land Ceiling Act and has rejected their objection. It is clear from the statement of facts that registration has been done on 23.06.1970 and it comes under the purview of the inquiry of Collector U/s 5 of the Act. The appellants were unable to produce the proof of ownership of the land by Shri Panna Lal Jee as they were neither able to produce any settlement patta by the acts ex-land lord Shri Shatrumardan Shahi (the land holder in this case) the copy of jamindari return submitted by Shri Panna Lal Jee or the rent receipt issued in the name of Shri Panna Lal Jee. Further they were unable to clarify by Shri Ranvijay Shahi, the son of the land holder, sold the land to Smt. Sushila Devi when Shri Panna Lal Jee was alive nor were then able to produce the power of attorney by Shri Panna Lal Jee to Shri Ranvijay Shahi. The chain of events make it clear that the land belong to the land holder (ex-land lord Shri Shatrumardan Shahi) and his son Shri Ranvijay Shahi sold the land by creating a fake intermediary Shri Panna Lal Jee. It is interesting to note that in all the documents the permission of Collector has not been taken and it is mentioned in the document that as per BT Act Section 49(g) there is no need to take permission (from the Collector). Further, in the absence of right to sell the land, as the land belong to Shri Shatrumardan Shahi the land holder in ceiling case no. 60/1973-74 and not to his son Ranvijay Shahi, the land holder in ceiling case no. Further, in the absence of right to sell the land, as the land belong to Shri Shatrumardan Shahi the land holder in ceiling case no. 60/1973-74 and not to his son Ranvijay Shahi, the land holder in ceiling case no. 79/1973-74 the vendors right to sell the land is not established. I agree with the observation of the lower court that the act of registration and land transfer was done with the object of defeating and in contravention of the provisions of the Act and hence the transfer is invalid. Hence this appeal fails to succeed. (emphasis added) 116. The case of the biggest land ceiling proceeding in Bihar has gone on for the past 48 years having started in 1973-74. The tale is of unregistered sometimes non existant Pattas, non existant claims of "registered sale deeds" and rent receipts and blatant claims unbacked by documents as evident from the documentation above. To ferret out the facts from this complicated web is a very difficult exercise after an elapse of 45 years and the Collector West Champaran has done a rigorous examination and produced 123 pages long order. This order must be read along with the order of Collector West Champaran dated 22.01.2019. 117. To sum up, the order of Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah dated 22.01.2019 is upheld with the following modifications: – (i) Final publication, should be done after incorporating the changes directed in the Para 11 and 12 of this order regarding enumeration of cases as per partition deed and regarding inclusion of Banami lands against the person who is having possession over the land. (ii) Further, the three family deities should be considered as three separate land holders and allocated land to the extent provided in the partition decree and the three public trusts should be registered under Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950. (iii) Further, the issue of residential land should be decided as per Para 17 of this order. (iv) Land Ceiling Appeal no. 57/19 Dumaria Joint Agriculture Cooperative should be decided as per Para 21 and 22 of the order. (v) Appeal case no. 50/19 and Appeal case no. 43/19 Indra Kumari Devi vs. State of Bihar and Appeal case no. 49/19 Padma Kumari Devi vs. State of Bihar should be decided in the light of direction given in Para 30 of the order. (vi) Appeal case no. (v) Appeal case no. 50/19 and Appeal case no. 43/19 Indra Kumari Devi vs. State of Bihar and Appeal case no. 49/19 Padma Kumari Devi vs. State of Bihar should be decided in the light of direction given in Para 30 of the order. (vi) Appeal case no. 82/19 Minakshi Singh vs. State of Bihar should be decided as per direction in Para no. 41 of the order. (vii) Appeal case no.74/19 Janmejay Dhawaj Singh should be decided as per direction in Para 64 of the order. (viii) Appeal case no. 42/19 Indradev Dubey and others vs. State of Bihar should be decided as per direction in Para 66 of the order. (ix) Appeal case no. 112/19 Bihari Kurmi vs. State of Bihar should be decided as per direction in Para 69 of the order. (x) Appeal case no. 65/19 Bandhu Dubey and others vs. State of Bihar should be decided as per direction in Para 85 of the order. (xi) Appeal case no. 81/19 Sudama Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar has been partially allowed and should be decided as per direction in Para 90 of the order. With these modifications the order of Collector. West Champaran, Bettiah in Ceiling case no. 60/1973-74 is upheld and his directed to proceed with the further course of action. All other appeals in the case have already been dismissed as specified in the respective paragraphs.” Dictated and Corrected Sd/- Illegible 25.04.2022 (Mihir Kumar Singh) Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 20. Still aggrieved, the petitioners chose to approach the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna individually and their case came to be registered as Surplus Case No. 16 of 2022 [West Champaran (Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others)]. 21. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar took up the matter and vide an order dated 05.12.2024 and vide a reasoned order, the revision petition was rejected with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. (Annexure P/12 to the writ petition). 22. The order dated 05.12.2024 stands incorporated hereinbelow: – “This Revision Petition was filed on 30th September 2022 against the order passed by the Learned Divisional Commissioner. Tirhut on 25th Apr 2022 in Land Ceiling Appeal no. 35/2019. The pleadings were completed and the matter was finally heard on 18th November 2024. 1,00,000/-. (Annexure P/12 to the writ petition). 22. The order dated 05.12.2024 stands incorporated hereinbelow: – “This Revision Petition was filed on 30th September 2022 against the order passed by the Learned Divisional Commissioner. Tirhut on 25th Apr 2022 in Land Ceiling Appeal no. 35/2019. The pleadings were completed and the matter was finally heard on 18th November 2024. As per the learned Advocate of the Revisionist, the total land involved is about 06 bigha 10 Katha and 10 dhur. The Learned Advocate of the Revisionist mentioned that the land in question was settled to Shri Panna Ji in 1948 by Shri Shatru Mardhan Shahi, who was the original Landlord. The land was mutated in the name of Shri Panna Ji. He draws the attention of this Court to page 31 of the Revision Petition. After the death of Shri Panna Ji, his son Shri Ashok Kumar Singh gave the Power of Attorney to Shri Ran Vijay Shahi. Based on that Power of Attorney, Shri Ran Vijay Shahi sold the land in question on 23rd June 1970 to Smt. Sushila Devi (Mother of Revisionist 1 & 2 and Grandmother of Revisionist 3). He further mentions that the land in question was mutated in favour of Smt. Sushila Devi (Mutation Case No. 337/1994-95). Since then, Smt. Sushila Devi has been paying the rent. The Learned Advocate further mentioned that all the sale deeds are enclosed at Annexure II of the Revision Application. He also mentions the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court which says that the Revenue Authorities cannot question a sale deed executed prior to cut off date i.e. 22nd October 1959. He also added that as per page 31 of the Revision Application, the land belongs to Shri Panna Ji in 1948. The Revenue Authorities cannot reopen this issue now. The Learned Lower Courts have ignored this fact. The Learned Special Government Pleader in his argument mentioned that the Learned Collector has considered this aspect which can be clearly seen from page 105 of the Revision Application, which is the portion of the Learned Collector order regarding this Revisionist. The case was also considered by the Learned Commissioner at page 251 of Revision Application, which is the relevant portion of the order of the Learned Commissioner regarding this Revisionist. The learned Special Government Pleader further argued that mutation, per se, is not a right of ownership. The case was also considered by the Learned Commissioner at page 251 of Revision Application, which is the relevant portion of the order of the Learned Commissioner regarding this Revisionist. The learned Special Government Pleader further argued that mutation, per se, is not a right of ownership. Having heard both the parties and having perused the relevant documents, the following facts emerge: – i. The Learned Advocate of the Revisionist says that the land was sold by the original Landlord to one Shri Panna Ji in 1948. In the support, he has not enclosed any sale deed of 1948. The only evidence (which is at page 31 of his Revision Application) is a vague reply given by the Circle Officer, Bagaha on 14th February 2015 (in a response to an RTI application). Even this reply only says that 'the Jamabandi was continuing in the name of Shri Panna Ji since the abolition of Zamindari'. The letter of the Circle Officer indicated no date as to where the Jamabandi started. Therefore, this evidence is not indicative as to how Shri Panna Ji came to own the said land. ii. It is an admitted fact that merely possessing rent receipts is not evidence of ownership. Therefore, the Revisionist have failed to prove that the land was owned by Shri Panna Ji in 1948. iii. The oldest rent receipt that the Revisionist could produce was of the year 1976-77 issued in the name of Shri Panna Ji. There is no rent receipt in the name of Shri Panna Ji before 1976-77 or after that date. If the land was in the ownership of Shri Panna Ji in 1948, the gap of 30 years (of missing rent receipts) is too big to be ignored. iv. Coming to the next point, it is interesting to note that the Revisionist's Mother bought the land from Shri Ran Vijay Shahi in the year 1970. But She took 25 long years to get the mutation done in 1994. This delay is also suspicious and cannot be ignored. v. Another weakness in the argument is the Revisionist agrees that the Power of Attorney (executed by Shri Ashok Singh in favour of Shri Ran Vijay Shahi) is not enclosed in their application. Nor even a date is indicated as to when this Power of Attorney was given. This delay is also suspicious and cannot be ignored. v. Another weakness in the argument is the Revisionist agrees that the Power of Attorney (executed by Shri Ashok Singh in favour of Shri Ran Vijay Shahi) is not enclosed in their application. Nor even a date is indicated as to when this Power of Attorney was given. Therefore, the Power of Attorney appears to be an eye wash meant to hoodwink the Revenue Authorities. vi. The sale deed of 1970 in favour of the Revisionist's Mother is the oldest document that was submitted by the Revisionist in this proceeding. Now this document too is dated 23rd June 1970, which is much later than the cut-off date viz. 22nd October 1959 as per Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961. vii. It is interesting to note that the Landlord 'sold' the land to Shri Panna Ji, whose son gave Power of Attorney back to the son of the Landlord. It may be noted that Shri Ran Vijay Shahi is the son of Shri Shatru Mardhan Shahi. This point is adequately indicated by the Learned Commissioner in para 115 of his Order dated 25th April 2022. viii. It is intriguing as to why Shri Ran Vijay Shahi sold the land to the Revisionist's Mother when Shri Panna Ji was still alive. ix. The above therefore clearly indicates that the entire business of the so called 'sale' by Landlord in 1948 and then the subsequent Power of Attorney back to his son, is a case of ‘round tripping’ of the land parcel with a clear intention of hoodwinking the Revenue Authorities and concealing the Surplus land form Ceiling Act.” Conclusion: – At the outset, I must appreciate the comprehensive order dated 22nd January 2019 passed by the Learned Collector. West Champaran. It is a comprehensive order dealing with the entire journey of 50 years of this Ceiling Case. The Learned Collector has passed an order spanning 123 pages and has quoted extensively the desperation of the Landlord in keeping the matter alive and approaching various Courts/Fora again and again. The Learned Collector has dealt on the issue affecting various 'interested parties' and have dealt the objections/concerns of each of them in detail. Similarly, this Court appreciates the detail and depth with which the Learned Commissioner has disposed of the appeals. The Learned Collector has dealt on the issue affecting various 'interested parties' and have dealt the objections/concerns of each of them in detail. Similarly, this Court appreciates the detail and depth with which the Learned Commissioner has disposed of the appeals. The Learned Commissioner's Order dated 25th April 2022 is an 82-page order discussing the merits of each of the parties and has dealt the same in accordance with the Law. It is seldom that this Court sees such detailed and comprehensive orders passed by the Revenue Authorities particularly the Learned Commissioners and Learned Collectors. I tend to agree with both the Learned Collector and the Learned Commissioner that the Landlord has gone to desperate lengths to keep this Land Ceiling Case alive, 50 years of which have already been passed. By generating proxy litigation (from more than 3 dozen persons/transferees) on the same Ceiling Case (Land Ceiling Case No. 60/1973-74), the Landlord has been successful in avoiding the law and inundating the Revenue Authorities with innumerable litigations. The said Land Ceiling Case No. 60/1973 may be rightly called the Mother of all Ceiling Cases' and has seen the Courts of the Learned Collector, the Learned Commissioner, the Board of Revenue, the Bihar Land Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court many times before. The total land involved in the slew of litigations is 2137 acres as per the notification under Section 10 (2) of the Act. Thus, the stakes of the Landlord were quite high. He and his successors have been successful in keeping the litigation alive right from the Learned Collector upto the Hon'ble High Court. At least thrice, this Ceiling Case has seen the doors of Hon'ble High Court and each time the matter was remanded back to the Collector. The Landlord again went up to the Commissioner and to the Board of Revenue. Thus, the Landlord has, in cooperation with various stake holders and 'transferees' like the Revisionist in this case, kept the litigation alive and is not letting it die in the last 50 years. The Landlord ensures that there are as many stake holders as possible. In the original Land Ceiling Case, he arranged to file 21 returns with an intention to complicate the whole Land Ceiling Case. The Landlord ensures that there are as many stake holders as possible. In the original Land Ceiling Case, he arranged to file 21 returns with an intention to complicate the whole Land Ceiling Case. As per the order of the Learned Collector, the then Learned Additional Collector had inquired and found all these 21 returns were filed by the individuals who are either fake or benami. In addition to these 21, there are 12 other persons (on paper) whose land is actually in possession of the Landlord. Where an order is passed by the Learned Collector in compliance to the order of the Hon'ble High Court, the aggrieved party (the Landlord) seizes this opportunity and throws the matter in the never-ending cycle of going through the Learned Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Bihar Land Tribunal and then finally again to Hon'ble High Court. This endless cycle is a deliberate strategy adopted often by the Landlords who play merry-go-round with the land Ceiling Cases. Coming to the instant case, it is clear that the Revisionist has not been able to produce any document whatsoever before the cut-off date of 22nd October 1959. Moreover, the Power of Attorney is also not enclosed by which the sale deed of 1970 was executed. The Revisionist has not submitted one document to justify his Case in Appellate/Revisional Fora. In the absence of the said documents, it appears that this is a clear case of hiding the Surplus land from the Authorities. As such I find that the order dated 25th April 2022 passed by the Learned Commissioner, Tirhut in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 30/2019 is in order and the same is hereby affirmed to the extent it applies to the Revisionist. That be the case. I find that the instant matter is totally frivolous and is an attempt to burden the Revenue Courts with needless litigation. It may be worthwhile to note that there are about 39 such people/transferees who are involved in the Ceiling Case, most of which are acting as a proxy off the original Landlord. Time has come to put an end to this endless chain of litigation. Time has also come to impose cost on such petitioners for wasting the time of officers dealing with Revenue matters. Accordingly, in terms of powers mentioned in Section 33 (d). I impose a cost of Rs. Time has come to put an end to this endless chain of litigation. Time has also come to impose cost on such petitioners for wasting the time of officers dealing with Revenue matters. Accordingly, in terms of powers mentioned in Section 33 (d). I impose a cost of Rs. One Lakh on the Petitioner and the same should be deposited with the Board of Revenue in 15 days. The learned Collector is directed to proceed further in terms of his order dated 22nd January, 2019 in Land Ceiling Case No. 60/1973- 74 and take further action as per the Land Ceiling Act, 1961. Revision Dismissed with Costs.” Dictated and Corrected Sd/- Illegible (K.K Pathak) Chairman-Cum-Member Board of Revenue, Bihar Sd/- Illegible 5/12/2024 (K.K. Pathak) Chairman-Cum-Member Board of Revenue, Bihar (emphasis added) 23. The petitioners thereafter approached the Bihar Land Tribunal (henceforth for short ‘the Tribunal’) in BLT Case no. 1111 of 2024 (Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). 24. ‘The Tribunal’ took up the matter on 20.12.2024 and having taken note of the orders passed by the Collector, West Champaran, the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur as also the Board of Revenue, Bihar, came to the conclusion that no interference is required. It thus affirmed the orders. However, ‘the Tribunal’ set aside the cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed against the petitioners. 25. Paragraph-15 onwards of the order dated 20.12.2024 read as follows: – “15. This Tribunal on perusing the order passed by appellate court as well as Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna finds that it has been mentioned in both the orders that these petitioners were unable to produce the proof of ownership of land by Panna Ji. Neither Panna Ji nor his descendants or the petitioner produced any Settlement Patta executed by Shatrumardhan Shahi (original landholder) in favour of Pannaji in the year 1948. The power of Attorney executed in favour of Ranvijay Sahi by Ashok Singh son of Panna Ji was not produced before the Court below. 16. Counsel for petitioner submits that at the time of execution of power of Attorney in favour of Ranvijay Sahi by son of Panna Ji, Panna Ji had already died. 17. The learned Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue. Bihar, Patna has held in the impugned order that petitioner has not enclosed any settlement paper of year 1948. 16. Counsel for petitioner submits that at the time of execution of power of Attorney in favour of Ranvijay Sahi by son of Panna Ji, Panna Ji had already died. 17. The learned Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue. Bihar, Patna has held in the impugned order that petitioner has not enclosed any settlement paper of year 1948. The information received under right to Information Act is only evidence produced by petitioner. 18. It is mentioned in the reply given by Circle Officer under R.T.I Act that Jamabandi was continuing in the name of Shri Panna Ji since the abolition of Jamindari and rent receipt was also issued in his favour. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has held in the order that oldest rent receipt produced by petitioner in the name of Pannaji was of the year 1976-77, There is no rent receipt in the name of Shri Panna Ji before 1976-77 or after that date, 19. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has taken into consideration that if the land was under ownership of Panna Ji since 1948, gap of 30 years of missing rent receipt is too big to be ignored. It is also mentioned in order of learned Chairman-cum- Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna that mutation of the land in question was done in favour of petitioner in the year 1994 after 25 years of execution of sale deed dated 23.06.1970 executed in favour of mother and grandmother of petitioner. Such long delay in filing the mutation petition can not be ignored and the mutation petition filed by the petitioner becomes suspicious. 20. It is also mentioned in the order of learned Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna that power of Attorncy (executed by Shri Ashok Singh in favour of Shri Ranvijay Shahi) is not enclosed either before him or before court below. Nor even a date has been indicated as to when this power of Attorney was given. Therefore, the Power of Attorney also become suspicious. 21. The Sale Deed executed in favour of mother of petitioner of the year 1970 was the oldest document submitted by the revisionist before the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. The aforesaid document was dated 23rd June, 1970, which was much later than the cut off date viz. 22 October, 1959 as per Section 5 (1) (iii) of Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961. 22. The aforesaid document was dated 23rd June, 1970, which was much later than the cut off date viz. 22 October, 1959 as per Section 5 (1) (iii) of Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961. 22. It is submitted in the order of learned Member Board of Revenue that petitioner was unable to produce the document of ownership of the land by Sri Panna Ji. The petitioners were not able to provide any settlement paper executed by landlord Shri Shatrumardhan Sahi in favour of Panna Ji. The copy of Jamabandi return filed by ex-landlord in favour of Panna Ji was not produced 23. The learned Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has noted in the order that Ranvijay Sahi sold the land to the revisionist's mother and grandmother when Shri Panna Ji was still alive. This fact is however denied by the counsel for petitioner. 24. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna after considering the case of the parties held that entire issues of Settlement by landlord in the year 1948 in the name of Panna Lal Jee and subsequent sale of land by his son Ranvijay Sahi on the basis of Power of Attorney executed by son of Panna Lal Jee (Ashok Kumar Singh) in his favour make it clear that son of landlord Ranvijay Sahi sold the land to Sushila Devi by creating fake intermediary Shri Panna Ji. The petitioner did not produce the Power of Attorney executed by son of Panna Lal Ji to Ranvijay Sahi. 25. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has imposed fine of Rs. One lakh to the petitioner to be deposited in the office of Board of Revenue in 15 days. 26. This Tribunal on the basis of finding given by the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in order dated 25.04.2022 passed in Surplus Case No. 16 of 2022 does not find any illegality in the same. The aforesaid finding is accordingly upheld and affirmed. 27. However, the part of the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by learned Chairman-cum- Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Surplus Case No. 16 of 2022 directing the petitioner to deposit fine of Rs. One Lakh in the office of Board of Revenue within 15 days is arbitrary and not in accordance with law. Therefore, that part of the order is hereby set aside. One Lakh in the office of Board of Revenue within 15 days is arbitrary and not in accordance with law. Therefore, that part of the order is hereby set aside. This application is accordingly disposed off as ordered above.” (emphasis added) Sd/-Illegible (Sanjay Priya) Chairman The Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna Dated 20th of December, 2024 Vishal 26. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. (C) Submissions: 27. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the land originally belonged to Satrumardan Shahi which was settled in favour of Panna Ji in the year 1948. He, however, concede that save and except the statement/submission, there is nothing on record/no chit of paper to substantiate the said claim. 28. He next submits that Ashok Singh, son of Panna Ji later gave Power of Attorney to son of Shatrumardan Shahi namely, Ran Vijay Shahi who in turn sold the land to the mother of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on 23.06.1970. 29. However, once again, learned counsel was unable to support the said contention on the query put forward by the court: – “(i) whether Pannaji was dead on the date his son, Ashok Singh gave power of the attorney to the Ran Vijay Shahi, son of the original land holder, Shatrumardan Shahi; (ii) the date/month/year when the power of attorney was extended by Ashok Singh on favour of Ran Vijay Shahi; (iii) the Power of Attorney papers.” 30. Learned counsel for the petitioners continued with his argument submitting that pursuant to the sale deed executed in the year 1970, the rent receipt was issued in the name of late Sushila Devi in the year 1994-95. Again, upon query, when the sale deed was executed in the year 1970, why it took 25 years for the petitioners family to take steps in moving before the Revenue authorities, there is no answer. 31. Learned counsel submits that it was a valid transaction from the Attorney holder, Ran Vijay Shahi and in that background, when the rent receipt was issued in favour of late Sushila Devi, though in the year 1994-95, they were entitled for relief. 32. 31. Learned counsel submits that it was a valid transaction from the Attorney holder, Ran Vijay Shahi and in that background, when the rent receipt was issued in favour of late Sushila Devi, though in the year 1994-95, they were entitled for relief. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit that the land was transferred to Pannaji in the year 1948 i.e. prior to 22.10.1959 and as such, the successive authority/Courts wrongly held the transaction to be ‘farzi’ and for the purpose of defeating the ceiling proceeding initiated against the original land holder, Shatrumardan Shahi. He concludes by submitting that the orders are thus liable to be set aside. 33. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits that there is not a single document on record to support the contention nor they were able to produce any such document before the authorities/Court to show the transfer of land prior to 1959 and/or its transfer to Pannaji. The submission is that the first document on record is the sale deed executed by Ran Vijay Shahi, son of the original land holder, Shatrumardan Shahi on 23.06.1970 and in absence of any details/documents/alleged transfer of land of Pannaji and subsequent Power of Attorney, it was clearly a ploy by the original land holder to save the land from the land ceiling proceeding by putting forward these ‘farzi’ transactions. Thus the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. (D) FINDINGS: 34. Thus the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. (D) FINDINGS: 34. Having gone through the facts of the case, the materials on record as also the submissions of the parties, the questions that need to be answered is/are: – “(i) whether the petitioners were able to prove before the authorities/Courts about the genuine transfer of land from the original land-holder, Shatrumardan Shahi in favour of one Pannaji in the year 1948; (ii) whether Pannaji was dead when his son, Ashok Singh gave Power of Attorney to Ran Vijay Shahi, the son of the original land holder, Shatrumardan Shahi; (iii) whether any document of alleged transfer of land to Pannaji and the Power of Power of Attorney were brought on record by the petitioners to prove their bona fide; (iv) whether (and if the answers to all the three aforesaid questions are in negative), the authorities/Courts erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners utterly failed to prove the case and it was a ‘farzi’ transaction by the original landholder to save the land.” 35. This Court has taken note of the consistent stand of the authorities/Courts that the petitioners, save and except the statements made to show their bonafide have failed to provide any document to support the claim put forward by them. The first document is the sale deed dated 23.06.1970 (not brought/annexed with the writ petition) followed by rent receipt issued 25 years later in the year 1994-95. 36. It is surprising that though the litigation is continuing for last five decades and the matter has traveled from the Collector, West Champaran to the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, then to Board of Revenue, Bihar and finally before ‘the Tribunal’; the petitioners have no supporting document to prove their case. Even in this voluminous writ petition, the petitioners are unable to complete the chain. 37. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have failed at the initial stage itself in completing the chain of: – “(i) alleged transfer of land from the land holder to Pannaji in the year 1948; (ii) Subsequent Power of Attorney by his son, Ashok Singh to Ran Vijay Shahi; (iii) thus, the subsequent transfer of lands to the petitioners’ mother/grand-mother comes within ‘farzi’ category transaction.” 38. This Court is in full agreement with the observations of the Collector, West Champaran, the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur as also the Board of Revenue, Bihar that the story of land transfer was created with the object of defeating the provisions of ‘the Act’ by the original land holder Shatrumardan Shahi. 39. Having gone through the facts of the case, the materials on record and the orders passed by the different Revenue authorities, ‘the BLT’ as recorded above, this Court holds that the conclusion arrived at by them are reasoned one and need no interference when the wheels of the entire story got stuck at the initial stage itself. 40. Thus the answers to the questions formulated by the Court is/are answered as under: – “(i) there is not a single chit of paper with the petitioners to show the transfer of lands to Pannaji by the original landholder, Shatrumardan Shahi; (ii) the petitioners utterly failed to provide any information about the status of Pannaji (whether he was dead or alive) when his son, Ashok Singh allegedly issued Power of Attorney in favour of Ran Vijay Shahi, the son of the original landholder, Shatrumardan Shahi; (iii) the Power of Attorney is not on record nor the petitioners have been able to provide the date/month/year of execution of Power of Attorney; (iv) as the chain of events is/are incomplete, the authorities/Courts were fully justified in negating the claim of the petitioners by holding that it was a ‘farzi’ transaction on behalf of the original landholder.” 41. Before parting, this Court would like to put on record its word of appreciation for the revenue authorities/Courts in taking pains and elaborating the entire facts which culminated into the rejection of the claim. 42. Time has now come to lower the curtains on the entire story. The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the three petitioners within a period of four weeks to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. Failure to do so, steps to be taken for the realization of the amount in accordance with law.