IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9959 of 2009 SRI BALDEO PRASAD, SON OF LATE SUKDEV PRASAD, RESIDENT OF NARKATIYAGANJ, P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTT. WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER-CUM-MINISTER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE AND LAND REFORM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIA. 5. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, REVENUE OF LAND REFORM DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, INCHARGE DISTRICT LEGAL SECTION, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIA. For the Petitioner :- M/s Ashok Kr. Sinha, Sr.Adv., Arun Pd. Ambastha, Advocate. For the State :- Mr. Ajay, SC(c)-3, Advocate. For the Intervener Respondents :- Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 07. 02.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also counsel for the intervener respondents. 2. Petitioner is a land holder, against whom ceiling proceeding No.41 of 1973-74/403 of 1976-77 was initiated by the revenue authorities serving under the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. He is aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, whereunder aforesaid ceiling proceeding has been reopened in exercise of the powers contained in Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Petitioner is also aggrieved by the notice issued by the Deputy Collector, Incharge Legal Section, West Champaran dated 20.7.2009, Annexure-5 whereunder the Deputy Collector called upon 17 cosharers of the petitioner named in the notice to produce the material in support of their age. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that initially seven - 2 - coshares were allowed unit the Additional Collector under order dated 10.6.1985, Annexure-1 allowed the family another 17 units. Petitioner was not satisfied with the grant of 24 units, he continued to agitate the matter for grant of more units. This Court having considered the request of the petitioner in the light of the materials placed before it including medical evidence under order dated 12.8.2004 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3316 of 2000, Annexure-2 allowed nine more unit to the family of the petitioner. Against the order dated 12.8.2004 Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the State of Bihar but the appeal failed. After dismissal of the Letters Patent Appeal Collector, West Champaran requested the State Government to reopen the ceiling proceeding initiated against the petitioner so as to enable the Collector to comply the order dated 12.8.2004 and grant nine more unit to the other cosharers of the petitioner. The aforesaid request of the Collector was considered by the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department under orders dated 14.7.2009 whereunder the Hon’ble Minister directed for reopening of the ceiling proceeding so as to enable the Collector to comply the orders of this Court dated 12.8.2004, Annexure-2. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while proceeding in terms of the order reopening the proceeding the Collector issued notice dated 20.7.2009, Annexure-5 calling upon 17 cosharers of the petitioner named in the notice to produce material in support of their age. The notice is causing apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that on the pretext of granting nine units in compliance of the orders of this Court dated 12.8.2004 the authorities are reconsidering the grant of unit to the 17 cosharers of the petitioner named in the notice, although, there is - 3 - hardly any material before the Collector to dispute the age of the 17 cosharers on the basis of which they were earlier allowed unit by the Additional Collector under order dated 10.6.1985, Annexure-1. 4. In view of the aforesaid submission this Court asked the counsel for the State to justify the action, which the authorities are proposing to take in the light of the notice dated 20.7.2009, Annexure-5 the learned counsel with reference to the order sheet of the Collector dated 25.11.2002, Annexure-4 in the same ceiling proceeding submitted that the Circle Officer, Narkatiyaganj had confidentially examined the records of the different schools in which M/s Dinanath Prasad, Surendra Prasad, Ashok Kumar, Sesnath Prasad, Dhrub Prasad and Ramesh Prasad, the cosharers of the petitioner had studied and from the records maintained in the school the Circle Officer discovered that aforesaid six persons were minor on 9.9.1970 and were incorrectly allowed unit under order dated 10.6.1985. In appreciation of such erroneous grant of unit to the aforesaid six persons it is now proposed to examine the case of 17 cosharers named in the notice dated 20.7.2009. 5. The Hon’ble Minister under order dated 14.7.2009 directed for reopening of the ceiling proceeding with reference to Section 45B of the Act, which inter alia permit the State Government to reopen the ceiling proceeding on the basis of fresh material which could not be considered by the authorities earlier. From perusal of the order dated 25.11.2002, Annexure-4, notice dated 20.7.2009, Annexure-5 as also from order of the Hon’ble Minister dated 14.7.2009 it does not appear that any fresh material is in custody of the authorities, on the basis of which they are - 4 - proposing to re-examine the grant of unit to the 17 cosharers of the petitioner named in the notice dated 20.7.2009, Annexure-5. In the circumstances, in my opinion, there is no difficulty in concluding that notice dated 20.7.2009, Annexure-5 is completely vague as it does not provide for any material on the basis of which grant of unit to the 17 cosharers of the petitioner named in the notice could be questioned. Accordingly, I set aside the notice dated 20.7.2009, Annexure-5, however, with liberty to the Collector, West Champaran to obtain the age certificate of the 17 cosharers of the petitioner from the different schools where the 17 coshareres pursued their studies and issue fresh notice annexing the certificate calling upon the cosharers to accept or rebut the age indicated in the certificate as the date of birth recorded in the certificate is not sacrosanct and can be rebutted by leading evidence in rebuttal in terms of the provisions of Sections-4 and 6 of the Evidence Act. 6. As the ceiling proceeding has already been reopened under the orders of the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, the intervener is at liberty to request the Collector, West Champaran to examine his contentions raised in the intervention application and with this observation I.A. No.6237 of 2009 filed by Mr. Deenanath Prasad and another is disposed of. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)