Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Feb 04, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/124399

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/124399
Court: Patna High Court
Judge: Aftab Alam, J.
Decided On: Feb 04, 1997
Case Number: C.W.J.C. No. 535 of 1997
Subject: ;Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, Sections 9(2) and 45-B - Land belonging to petitioner--Included in respondent's land--Respondent in his return too, did not mentioned that land as his own land but when in draft statement that land was shown to be belonging to r...

Key legal issue: ;Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Singh

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Court's Analysis

Prior History: Aftab Alam , J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Verma, SC (Ceiling ) with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the all too familiar grievance that lands lawfully belonging to him were included in the land ceiling proceeding held against one Ramchandra Prasad, his vendor and were declared as surplus land in his hands. When the petitioner came to learn of this fact he filed an appl

Excerpt

bihar land reforms (fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land) act, 1961, sections 9(2) and 45-b - land belonging to petitioner--included in respondent's land--respondent in his return too, did not mentioned that land as his own land but when in draft statement that land was shown to be belonging to respondent, he left it to be declared as surplus--such exercise of discretion was contrary to law by respondent--court below committed legal error in ignoring this fact when petitioner filed application for correction and reopening of proceedings under section 45-b--direction for consideration of this fact issued while reconsideration of application under section 45-b. - - 6. having heard learned counsel for the parties, i am of the opinion that the learned collector has committed a patent error and has overlooked the fact that the land holder had exercised his option contrary to the provision of section 9(2) of the act and in a manner which best suited his own interests......however, those lands were included in the name of the land holder and while exercising his option under section 9(2) of the act he left those lands to be declared as surplus. the collector has assigned the aforesaid reasons for refusing to reopen the proceeding.6. having heard learned counsel for the parties, i am of the opinion that the learned collector has committed a patent error and has overlooked the fact that the land holder had exercised his option contrary to the provision of section 9(2) of the act and in a manner which best suited his own interests. section 9(2) of the act provides that any lands sold after 9.9.1970 should normally be given in the unit which the land holder is allowed to retain and therefore in terms of section 9(2) the lands claimed by the petitioner should have formed part of the lands allowed to be retained with the land holder.7. i, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.1996 and remit the matter back to the collector to reconsider the petitioner's grievance after issuing notice to respondent no. 4, the heir of the original land holder ramchandra prasad and, if need be, to any other concerned persons such as the parcha holder (s) in respect of the disputed lands.8. in order to facilitate an early disposal of the matter the petitioner is directed to appear before the collector, samastipur with a copy of this order by march 10, 1997. the collector will issue notice (s) to the concerned parties as indicated in this order and will fix a firm date of hearing on which the parties will be heard. it is expected that the collector will dispose of the petitioner's application within three months from the date of this appearance.9. till a final order is passed by the collector in this matter, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the disputed lands.

Full Judgment

Aftab Alam , J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Verma, SC (Ceiling ) with their consent this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court with the all too familiar grievance that lands lawfully belonging to him were included in the land ceiling proceeding held against one Ramchandra Prasad, his vendor and were declared as surplus land in his hands. When the petitioner came to learn of this fact he filed an application under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act before the Collector, Samastipur.

3. The Collector by order dated 15.11.1996 passed in Misc. Ceiling Case No. 16 of 1992-93/4 of 1994-95 rejected the petition and declined to reopen the proceeding. It is this order which comes under challenge in this writ petition.

4. The lands claimed by the petitioner, measuring to an area of 1 Bigha 19 Kathas 7 Dhurs are fully described in paragraph 3 of the writ petition. According to the petitioner he purchased the disputed lands from Ramchandra Prasad by a registered sale deed dated 5.1.1974.

5. From the impugned order it appears that on 10.6.1976 the land holder had filed his return in LC. Form No. II. In the land holder's return the disputed lands were not included and hence he did not claim those lands as belonging to him. In the draft statement, however, those lands were included in the name of the land holder and while exercising his option under Section 9(2) of the Act he left those lands to be declared as surplus. The Collector has assigned the aforesaid reasons for refusing to reopen the proceeding.

6. having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the learned Collector has committed a patent error and has overlooked the fact that the land holder had exercised his option contrary to the provision of Section 9(2) of the Act and in a manner which best suited his own interests. Section 9(2) of the Act provides that any lands sold after 9.9.1970 should normally be given in the unit which the land holder is allowed to retain and therefore in terms of Section 9(2) the lands claimed by the petitioner should have formed part of the lands allowed to be retained with the land holder.

7. I, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.1996 and remit the matter back to the Collector to reconsider the petitioner's grievance after issuing notice to Respondent No. 4, the heir of the original land holder Ramchandra Prasad and, if need be, to any other concerned persons such as the Parcha holder (s) in respect of the disputed lands.

8. In order to facilitate an early disposal of the matter the petitioner is directed to appear before the Collector, Samastipur with a copy of this order by March 10, 1997. The Collector will issue notice (s) to the concerned parties as indicated in this order and will fix a firm date of hearing on which the parties will be heard. It is expected that the Collector will dispose of the petitioner's application within three months from the date of this appearance.

9. Till a final order is passed by the Collector in this matter, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the disputed lands.

Same Court & Year Patna · 1997 Same Parties Arun Kumar @ Arun Kumar Singh vs State of Bihar and ors. Same Subject ;Property Same Judge Aftab Alam, J.

;Property In respect of Belonging to Patent error final order In order to Land holder