IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2560 of 2006 BALDEO PRASAD YADAV SON OF LATE CHHEDI LAL YADAV, R/O- VILLAGE- HARKHAILI, P.S.- SADAR, DISTRICT- PURNEA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND CEILING, PURNEA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BAISI, PURNEA. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, DAGARUA, DISTRICT- PURNEA. For the petitioner : Mr. Nurul Hoda, Advocate. For the State : Mrs Kumari Amrita, S.C. ----------- 5 05.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner seeks quashment of the notification dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-1) issued under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). It is the stand of the petitioner that land appertaining to Khata No. 33, Plot Nos. 361 (0.46 acres), 362 (0.01 acres) and 363 (0.66 acres) situated in Mauza Harkhaili, Anchal- Dagarua in the district of Purnea have been acquired wrongly although those lands were settled with the petitioner or his ancestor by the original land holder and/or his widow namely Mahmooda Begum. This is what the petitioner has claimed in paragraph 7 of the writ petition: “7. That the aforesaid Bibi Mahmooda Begum sensing the gravity of the situation and threats over the possession of the family of the possession and also coming in need of money donated the aforesaid plots in question to the petitioner on a consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/- vide registered deed dated 24.9.1985. The plots in question have already been given Khata No. 57 and Chak 2 Plot No. 210.” A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. This is what the respondents have stated in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the counter affidavit: “4. That with regard to the statement made in para-1, 2, 14 15 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned Gazette Notification no. 3064, dated 24.12.2004 whereby three plots bearing Khata no. 33, Plot No. 361, 362, 363 situated in the Mouza- Harkhaili has been declared surplus in land ceiling proceeding no. 866/73-74 initiated against Sarfuddin. The claim of the petitioner is that he purchased the aforesaid land from Mahmooda Begam widow of Sarfudin Ahmad the original land holder of the Ceiling Case No. 866/73-74 by virtue of a registered sale deed dt. 24.09.1985 but the land – holder or petitioner at no stage of Ceiling proceeding informed the authority concerned about the transfer of the land in question. Accordingly after following the procedure, land has been declared surplus in the Ceiling proceeding no. 886/73-74 and Notification U/s 15(i) has been made. It will be relevant to mention here that since the alleged transfer is after dt. 09.09.1970 in contravention of the section 5 (1)(ii) of the Ceiling Act without the permission of the Collector, so the authority concerned has rightly declared the land surplus U/s 11(i) of the Act. 5.That with regard to the statement made in para-3 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that petitioner has purchased the disputed land after dt. 09.09.1970 and according to section 9(2) read with section- 5(1)(2) of the Act, provide that if the land holder had not obtained prior permission for transfer of the land, any transferred lands, in case of transfer made after dt. 09.09.1970 will still be deemed to be part of the lands held by the land holder and will be deemed to have been selected by the land holder for being retained by land-holder for determination of Ceiling area. It will be relevant to mention here that in view of section-9(2) land holder is necessary party but in the present writ petition, land holder has been not made party.” 3 Having heard the parties, this Court is of the considered view that invocation of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter can be refused on more than one grounds. Firstly, the land holder has not been made party in the present proceeding. Secondly, pleadings made in the application are not supported by the documents inasmuch as the deed of gift or sale dated 24.9.1985 has not been annexed to the writ petition and thirdly it appears that the claim relating to land is vacillating At one stage, it is claimed that the land was settled with the ancestor of the petitioner whereas subsequently it is averred that the land was sold/gifted to the petitioner or his ancestor in the year 1985. If the case of the petitioner is based on the sale/gift executed in his favour in 1985 then the stand of the respondents in those paragraphs appear to be correct. No relief in terms of Section 9 (2) of the Act can also be granted to the petitioner in absence of the land holder before this Court. While declining to grant relief to the writ petitioner, this Court observes that the present order shall not preclude the petitioner from approaching the authorities under the Act for reopening of the proceeding. The application stands disposed of. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)