IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1680 of 2003 with CWJC No.2115 of 2003 with CWJC No.3403 of 2003 with CWJC No.3796 of 2003 CWJC No. 1680 of 2003: 1. Mostt. Sushila Kuer, widow of Late Devi Lal Prasad. 2. Ishwar Chandra Prasad, 3. Subhash Chandra Prasad, 4. Satish Chandra Kumar, all sons of Late Devilal Prasad. 5. Kumari Chandan Sinha, 6. Kumari Puja Sinha, both daughters of Devi Lal Prasad, 7. Vishwanath Pd. Son of Late Kishun Mahto, all of village Jituar, PS Madhuban, District East Champaran – Petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar, 2. The Collector, East Champaran. 3. The Addl. Collector, East Champaran. 4. The D.C.L.R., Pakridayal Subdivision, East Champaran. 5. The Anchal Adhikari, Madhuban, East Champaran. 6. Suresh Pd. Son of Late Anurag Prasad, 7. Dilip Kumar, 8. Praduman Kumar, both sons of Late Anurag Prasad, 9. Rajendra Prasad, 10. Surednra Prasad, 11. Narendra Prasad, 12. Birendra Prasad, 13. Devendra Prasad, all sons of Late Ram Bhujawan Prasad, 14. Mostt. Thagia Devi, wife of Late Ram Bhujawan Prasad, residents of village Jitaura, PS Madhuban, Dist. East Champaran – Respondents. CWJC No. 2115 of 2003: 1) Most. Thagia Devi, wife of Late Rambhujawan Prasad, 2) Rajendra Prasad, 3) Surendra Prasad, 4) Harendera Prasad, 5) Birendra Prasad, 6) Devendra Prasad, all sons of Late Rambhujhawan Prasad, village Jitaura, PS Madhuban, Dist. East Champaran – petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Dist. Magistrate cum Collector, East Champaran. 3) Addl. Collector, East Champaran. 4) D.C.L.R., Pakridayal Subdivision, East Champaran. 5) The Anchal Adhikari, Madhuban, East Champaran. 6) Suresh Prasad, 2 7) Dilip Kumar, 8) Praduman Kumar, sons of Late Anurag Prasad, 9) Most. Sushila Kuer, wife of Late Devi Lal Prasad, 10) Ishwar Chandra Prasad, 11) Subhash Chandra Prasad, 12) Satish Chandra Prasad, sons of Late Devi Lal Prasad, 13) Kumari Chandan Sinha, 14) Kumari Puja Sinha, both daughters of Late Devi Lal Prasad, 15) Bishwanath Prasad, son of Late Kishun Mahto, all of village Jitaura, PS Madhuban, Dist. East Champaran – Respondents. CWJC No. 3403 of 2003: 1) Dani Lal Prasad, 2) Muni Lal Prasad, both sons of Late Ram Gulam Mahto, village Jitaura, PS Madhuban, District East Champaran – petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Collector, East Champaran. 3) The Addl. Collector, East Champaran. 4) The D.C.L.R., Pakridayal Subdivision, East Champaran. 5) The Anchal Adhikari, Madhuban, East Champaran. 6) Suresh Prasad, 7) Dliip Kumar, 8) Praduman Kumar, sons of Late Anurag Prasad, 9) Rajendra Prasad, 10) Surendra Prasad, 11) Harendra Prasad, 12) Birendra Prasad, 13) Devendra Prasad, sons of Late Rambhujhawan Prasad, 14) Most. Thagia Devi, wife of Late Rambhujhawan Prasad. 15) Mostt. Sushila Kuer, wife of Late Devi Lal Prasad, 16) Ishwar Chandra Prasad, 17) Subash Chandra Prasad, 18) Satish Chandra Kumar, sons of Late Devi Lal Prasad, 19) Bishwanath Prasad, son of Late Kishun Mahto, all of village Jitaura, PS Madhuban, District East Champaran – Respondents. CWJC No. 3796 of 2003: 1) Ram Chandra Rai, 2) Rajendra Rai, 3) Yogendra Kumar, all sons of Late Bhikhari Rai, village Jitaura, PS Madhuban, Dist. Madhuban – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Collector, East Champaran. 3) The Addl. Collector, East Champaran. 4) The D.C.L.R., Pakridayal Subdivision, East Champaran. 5) The Anchal Adhikari, Madhuban, East Champaran. 6) Suresh Prasad, son of Late Anurag Prasad, 7) Dilip Kumar, 3 8) Praduman Kumar, both sons of Late Anurag Prasad, 9) Rajendra Prasad, 10) Surendra Prasad, 11) Harendra Prasad, 12) Birendra Prasad, 13) Devendra Prasad, all sons of Late Rambhujawan Prasad, 14) Mostt. Thagia Devi, wife of Late Rambhujawan Prasad, 15) Mostt. Sushila Kuer, wife of Devi Lal Prasad, 16) Ishwar Chandra Prasad, 17) Subash Chandra Prasad, 18) Satish Chandra Kumar, all sons of Late Devi Lal Prasad, 19) Bishwanath Prasad, son of Late Kishun Mahtol, village Jitaura, PS Madhuban, Dist. East Champaran – Respondents. 5 23.8.2010 CWJC Nos. 2115 and 1680 of 2003 have been filed on behalf of heirs of the land holder, whereas CWJC Nos. 3796 and 3403 of 2003 are filed on behalf of persons whose lands have been wrongly included in the ceiling proceeding of the land holder. Three ceiling proceedings were initiated. Ceiling Case No. 1431/1973-74 was initiated against Kishun Mahto, Ceiling Case No. 1432/1973-74 against Anurag Prasad and Ceiling Case No. 1433/1973-74 was initiated against Rambhujawan Prasad. The verification report contained in Annexure 3 gives the genealogical table of the petitioners’ family. From the genealogical table it is clear that Chhathu Mahto had a son Kishun Mahto. Kishun Mahto had four sons, namely, Rambhujhawan Prasad, Devi Lal Prasad, Anurag Prasad and Bishwanath Prasad. The ceiling proceedings were initiated against Kishun and only two of his sons. The total lands belonging to the family was 105 acres of Class IV land, which included the lands sold by the family as well as the lands of strangers to the family. Ceiling Case No. 1431 and 1433 of 1973- 4 74 were dropped by order, dated 29.12.1981 Annexure A/4). However, Ceiling Case No. 1432/1973-74 remained alive. Ceiling Case No. 1432/1973-74 was later converted into Ceiling Proceeding No.2/1990 which was initiated only against Anurag Prasad. Two units were granted to Anurag Prasad and his major son. The lands which were subject matter of Ceiling Proceeding No.2/1990 in fact covered the lands of the entire family shown in the earlier verification report i.e. 105 acres Class IV lands. On the basis of the fact that Anurag Prasad and his son had owned 105 acres of land, 54.93 acres of lands was declared surplus. The husband of the first two writ petitions filed an application before the Collector of the district under section 45B of the Act which was rejected on the ground that the section has been amended and the power to reopen a ceiling proceeding was vested with the State Government. Thereafter, an application was filed before the State and by Annexure 7 the matter was reopened and sent to the Collector for disposal. By the order impugned, dated 8.1.2003 the Collector has dismissed the application without considering any of the facts on the ground that the petitioners did not appear and that a final notification has been issued on 10.7.1996. On perusal of the order, it appears that the matter was placed before the Collector on 9.7.1996. Between July 1996 almost on all the dates the petitioners remained present to pursue their case. In fact the last order recorded on 26.10.99 indicates that 5 the Collector was busy with the election. On 26.11.1999 the petitioners had been marked absent and at the same time, the orders record that the Collector is busy. This would be apparent from the orders dated 21.1.2000, 8.2.2000, 7.7.2000 onwards right up to the order, dated 13.11.2002. Finally on 8.1.2003 the Collector decided to sit and hear the matter. In view of the facts that the petitioners had pursued their case for about three years, it cannot be said that they were not vigilant. It is true that the petitioners did not pursue the case since 2000, but at the same time it is equally true that the Collector was busy and was unable to hold court for the purpose of disposing of the case. In such circumstances the proper procedure that ought to have been followed was to issue a fresh notice to the petitioners so that they could appear in the case and place their facts. In the result I direct that the Collector should hear the writ petitioners of CWJC Nos. 3796 and 3403 of 2003, who claim that their lands have wrongly been clubbed with the lands of the land holder in the ceiling proceeding as well as the land holders. The Collector should issue notice, fix a probable date and try to dispose of the matter at the earliest in view of the fact that the same is pending since 1973-74. In case he is busy on account of coming election, it would be proper for him to fix a date in the matter after the election. In the mean time the Collector is directed not to dispossess the petitioners or to distribute the lands without deciding the ceiling case. The petitioners may bring this order to the notice of the Collector within eight weeks from 6 the date of its receipt. I accordingly quash the order, dated 8.1.2003 and these writ petitions are allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)