Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bibi Amrunnisan and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Bibi Amrunnisan and ors. vs State of Bihar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided Sep 23, 1999
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/129152

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.W.J.C. Nos. 5040 and 5803 of 1992
Subject
;Property

Case Summary

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

Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961, Sections 5(ii) & 9(ii) - Having common question of law both petitions disposed of by common order--Land was purchased in contravention of Section 5(ii) after 9-9-1970--Proceeding for determination of surplus land without notice to the petitioners--Transfer was not disclosed by land-hold...

Key legal issue
;Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bibi Amrunnisan and ors.

Respondent

State of Bihar and ors.

Excerpt

bihar land ceiling act, 1961, sections 5(ii) & 9(ii) - having common question of law both petitions disposed of by common order--land was purchased in contravention of section 5(ii) after 9-9-1970--proceeding for determination of surplus land without notice to the petitioners--transfer was not disclosed by land-holder also--gazette notification under section 15(1) was published by collector--without approaching the collector to re-open the proceeding this petition--court observed section 9(ii) comes to the aid of the petitioner in contravention of section 5(ii)--feeling not necessary to remit back the matter to collector--petition allowed--notification quashed and direction to collector to issue modified notification in accordance with law. - .....47.50 acres land as surplus land of the land-holder and allowed him to retain 30 acres and odd. gazette notification under section 15( 1) of the act was published and the lands of the land-holders, namely, chandra madhav prasad and dina nath prasad were declared surplus.3. the petitioners rushed to this court and filed the present writ applications without approaching the collector to re-open the proceeding.4. even if transfers made by the land-holders as in the present case is in contravention of section 5 (ii) of the act, section 9(ii) of the act comes to the aid of the petitioners which provides that any land transferred in accordance with or in contravention of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of sections 5, shall, to the extent of ceiling area admissible to the landholder, be deemed to have been selected by him for retention within the ceiling area. there is no dispute in the present case the land purchased by the petitioners are included in the surplus land of the land-holders.5. in c.w.j.c. no. 5040 of 1992, the petitioners had purchased 2.73 acres of land by two sale-deeds. the petitioner in c.w.j.c. no. 5803 of 1995 had purchased 1.32 acres of land.6. in my view, there will be no necessity of remitting the case and directing the collector to re-open the matter. both the writ applications are allowed with a direction to the collector to exclude the lands purchased by the petitioners in each case from the ceiling area from the lands declared surplus i.e. 47.50 acres. the gazette notification (annexure-2 in c.w.j.c. no. 5803 of 1995 and annexure-1 in c.w.j.c. no. 5040 of 1992) is hereby quashed. the collector east champaran is directed to issue modified notification in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

R.N. Sahay, J.

1. Both the writ applications at the instance of purchasers from the land-holders involve a common question of law and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Admittedly the petitioners in each case had purchased land from the land-holders after 9-9-1970, Transfers were made by the land-holder in contravention of Section 5 (ii) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961. It appears that the proceeding for determination of surplus land was initiated against the vendor of the petitioners without notice to the petitioners. It also appears that the land-holder did not disclose that he had transferred the land to any person. After conclusion of land ceiling proceeding, the Collector declared 47.50 acres land as surplus land of the land-holder and allowed him to retain 30 acres and odd. Gazette Notification under Section 15( 1) of the Act was published and the lands of the land-holders, namely, Chandra Madhav Prasad and Dina Nath Prasad were declared surplus.

3. The petitioners rushed to this Court and filed the present writ applications without approaching the Collector to re-open the proceeding.

4. Even if transfers made by the land-holders as in the present case is in contravention of Section 5 (ii) of the Act, Section 9(ii) of the Act comes to the aid of the petitioners which provides that any land transferred in accordance with or in contravention of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Sections 5, shall, to the extent of ceiling area admissible to the landholder, be deemed to have been selected by him for retention within the ceiling area. There is no dispute in the present case the land purchased by the petitioners are included in the surplus land of the land-holders.

5. In C.W.J.C. No. 5040 of 1992, the petitioners had purchased 2.73 acres of land by two sale-deeds. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 5803 of 1995 had purchased 1.32 acres of land.

6. In my view, there will be no necessity of remitting the case and directing the Collector to re-open the matter. Both the writ applications are allowed with a direction to the Collector to exclude the lands purchased by the petitioners in each case from the ceiling area from the lands declared surplus i.e. 47.50 acres. The Gazette Notification (Annexure-2 in C.W.J.C. No. 5803 of 1995 and Annexure-1 in C.W.J.C. No. 5040 of 1992) is hereby quashed. The Collector East Champaran is directed to issue modified notification in accordance with law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial