IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6489 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Ran Vijay Bahadur Singh ( expunged and substituted vide order dated 6.8.2013) 1(a) Ghanshyam Narain Singh, son of Ran Vijay Bahadur Singh, resident of Village Akhilaspur, P.S. Bhabua, District Kaimur (b) Nanda Devi, wife of Kripa Narain Singh, resident of Village Bhadari, P.O. Barahi, P.S. Bhaua, District Kaimur ( c) Saroj Devi, wife of Sri Sarwan Kumar Singh, resident of Village +P.O. + P.S. Sonhan District Kaimur 2. Sarswati Devi ( expunged and substituted by her heirs and legal representatives, who are already on record as petitioner Nos. 1(a) to 1(c), vide order dated 23.8.2013) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. Collector Kaimur at Bhabua 4. S.D.O. Bhabua 5. Circle Officer, Bhabhua .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Sr.Advocate Mr. Mahesh Prasad No. 2, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.C. to AAG 1.=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date:
30. 08-2013 Heard the parties.
2. The original petitioners, who are now dead and have been substituted by their heirs and legal representatives, filed the 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.6489 of 1990 dt.30-08-2013 2/6 present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for quashing the entire proceeding of the land Ceiling Case No. 47 of 1982, whereby the original Land Ceiling Case No. 94 of 1965-66, started and concluded against the original land holder Jainath Singh, was reopened by the respondent District Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) 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, ‘Land Ceiling Act’) and consequential orders have been passed.
3. The facts involved in the present proceeding are not in much controversy. Originally, Land Ceiling Case No. 94 of 1965-66 was started against the original land holder Jai Nath Singh and he was found to be in possession of 116.64 acres of land. In the aforesaid Ceiling Case, the land holder was allotted altogether 5 ceiling Units and land ceiling case was finally dropped, as no surplus land was found. Subsequently, the Additional Collector, Kaimur, Bhabua recommended to the respondent District Collector, Kaimur (Bhabua) for reopening of the land ceiling case in exercise of his powers under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act giving rise to Ceiling Case No. 47 of 1982. The entire order sheet of the aforesaid Ceiling case No. 47 of 1982 has been brought on record as Annexure- 7.
4. By an order dated 28.6.1982, the respondent District Collector, Kaimur, Bhabua issued a notice to the land holder to show cause as to why the land ceiling case be not reopened in exercise of his powers under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act.
5. It appears that due to death of original land holder Jai Nath Singh his heirs and legal representatives were substituted and the aforesaid ceiling proceeding continued. After 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.6489 of 1990 dt.30-08-2013 3/6 giving an opportunity of hearing to the land holder, by an order dated 14.2.1983, the respondent District Collector, Kaimur, Bhabua, reopened the land ceiling case in exercise of his posers under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act. After receiving the verification report from concerned Anchal Adhikari, under the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, draft publication under Section 10(1) of the Land Ceiling Act was prepared, and it was subsequently published under section 10(2) of the Land Ceiling Act. Altogether 131.56 acres of land were found to be in possession of the land holder. The land holder for himself and for his other family members was allotted 5 Ceiling Units and was allowed to retain 125 Acres of lands. Only 6.56 acres of land were found to be surplus vide order dated 30.03.1984, passed by the Collector under the Land Ceiling Act.
6. After disposal of objections under Section 10(3) of the Land Ceiling Act, final publication of draft statement was made under Section 11(1) of the Land Ceiling Act declaring only 6.56 acres of lands to be surplus, after allowing the land holders to retain 125 acres of lands. These facts can be found from the orders dated 15.12.1987 and 17.8.1989, which are the part of Annexure-7 itself.
7. At this place it is relevant to mention that though the order for reopening of the land ceiling case under Section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act was passed by an order dated 14.2.1983, but the petitioners or any other persons did not challenge the aforesaid order dated 14.2.1983, hence that order became final. Further this Court finds that after final publication of draft statement under section 11(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, an appeal and revision was statutory alternative remedy available to the petitioners in terms of Sections 30 and 32 of the Land Ceiling Act, but admittedly, against the aforesaid final publication made under section 11(1) of the Land ceiling Act, 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.6489 of 1990 dt.30-08-2013 4/6 the petitioners did not file any appeal or revision. Hence, it became final.
8. Subsequently, a Gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act was also published on 26.12.1989 acquiring the aforesaid surplus lands of 6.56 acres, which vested in the State of Bihar free from all encumbrances. Though, admittedly, the petitioners did not file any appeal or revision against the final order passed under Section 10(3) or against the final publication of draft statement made under Section 11(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, but, subsequently, they filed a revision Case No. 17 of 1990 before the Board of Revenue against the order dated 15.1.1990, wherein it was simply noticed that copy of Gazette notification published under section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act on 26.12.1989 has been received through letter No. 3 dated 4.1.1990.
9. Obviously, the aforesaid Revision application filed against an interlocutory order with respect to the receipt of the copy of Gazette notification was not maintainable. Therefore, the revision Case No. 17 of 1990 was dismissed by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue by his order dated 27.8.1990 (Annexure-8), which is also subject matter of challenge in the present proceeding. It further appears that in view of Gazette notification under section 15(1) of the Land ceiling Act, 6.56 acres of surplus lands, which vested in the state of Bihar free from all encumbrances, were distributed amongst the beneficiaries, but none of the beneficiaries has been impleaded as party in the present proceeding.
10. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has very fairly submitted that the petitioners are not aggrieved with respect to the allotment of only 5 ceiling Units to the landholder and his family members. According to him, the only 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.6489 of 1990 dt.30-08-2013 5/6 grievance of the petitioners is that the lands in question belonging to the landholder should have been treated as Class IV land and not Class III land and, therefore, on that count, he submitted, that the orders passed in the aforesaid land ceiling case are fit to be set aside.
11. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit.
10. After having heard the parties, this court is of the opinion that prayer for setting aside the entire proceeding under section 45B of the Land ceiling Act is completely misconceived and untenable. Admittedly, the proceeding was reopened under section 45B of the Land Ceiling Act by the respondent District Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua by order dated 14.2.1983, but that order was not challenged by the petitioners at the relevant time and allowed it to become final. In view of the aforesaid order of reopening of the land ceiling case, draft statement under section 10(2) of the Land Ceiling Act was published showing 6.56 acres of lands to be surplus. Even that order was not challenged by the petitioners. In view of the order passed under section 10(3) of the Land ceiling Act, final publication of draft statement was made on 19.7.1989. Against aforesaid final publication of draft statement under section 11(1) of the Land Ceiling Act, appeal and revision do lie under sections 30 and 32 respectively of the Land Ceiling Act, but apparently, no such appeal or revision was filed by the petitioners. Subsequently, Gazette notification under section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act was published on 26.12.1989 acquiring the aforesaid surplus area of 6.56 acres of lands by the State of Bihar. Even that notification was not challenged at an appropriate stage. The petitioners filed revision application against the order dated 15.1.1990 before the Board of Revenue. The order dated 15.1.1990 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.6489 of 1990 dt.30-08-2013 6/6 was apparently, an interlocutory order and, therefore, the revision application was rightly rejected by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue by his order dated 27.8.1990 ( Annexure- 8). All these orders are sought to be challenged in the present proceeding only on the ground of alleged improper classification of the lands belonging to the land holder. Obviously, classification of plots of lands involves the issue of facts, which was required to be gone into by the competent authorities under the Land Ceiling Act at the relevant stage of the land ceiling case.
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issues of facts must be raised before the statutory authorities and be decided by them conclusively on the basis of materials produced by the parties. Now, at this belated stage, the question of classification of lands cannot be gone into. Admittedly, the petitioners have been allowed to retain 125 acres of lands and only 6.56 acres of lands were declared surplus and were subsequently acquired and have been distributed amongst the beneficiaries, who all are landless persons.
13. For the reasons recorded above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
14. In the result, the writ application has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. The interim order of stay dated 1.11.1990 passed by a Bench of this Court stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Kanth/-