IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8060 of 2005 JAGAT MAYA DEVI, WIDOW OF LATE BABU GIRJA NANDAN SINGH @ TARESHAWAR SINGH, R/O- MOHALLA SUBHANKARPUR, P.S.- DARBHANGA TOWN, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND CEILING, DARBHANGA. For the petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Krityanand Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha, A.C. to G.P. 2 ----------- 13 11.04.2011 Petitioner is the land holder within the meaning of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for short the Act), being widow of the original land holder namely Tareshawar Singh @ Babu Girija Nandan Singh. She is aggrieved by the order dated 26.7.2004 passed by the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue (Annexure-1) whereby the revision application preferred by her has been considered and rejected. 2. A land ceiling case being L.C No. 349 of 1977-78 was initiated against the original land holder (husband of the present petitioner). After abatement in terms of Section 32B of the Act, fresh draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Act was published. Objection on behalf of the petitioner was filed claiming therein that the two sons of the land holder namely Rajiv Nandan Singh and Sanjiv Nandan Singh were major on 9.9.1970 and as such they were entitled to two separate ceiling units. It was also 2 contended that one Vijay Nandan Singh (full brother of the original land holder) was also major on 9.9.1970 and as such he was also entitled to a separate ceiling unit. It appears from the record that the land holder also contended that mother of the original land holder namely Kameshwari Bahurain was alive and as such she was entitled to a separate land ceiling unit. It is the case of the petitioner that she died on 17.2.1995. The original authority considered the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner and refused to allow any separate ceiling units to the two sons of the original land holder namely Rajiv Nandan Singh and Sanjiv Nandan Singh as also to the full brother of the original land holder namely Vijay Nandan Singh as in spite of more than adequate opportunity granted to them, they failed to satisfy the authority by bringing on record convincing document including the matriculation certificate to demonstrate that they were major on 9.9.1970. Accordingly, by order dated 12.8.1997 (Annexure-2), the objections were overruled and the land holder was allowed to retain only one ceiling unit and consequently 30 acres of Class-IV land were allowed to be retained by the original land holder (now writ petitioner). Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred before the Collector vide Ceiling Appeal No. 50/1997-98. It appears that there also, a similar claim was raised for four additional units, one each for the mother of the land holder, 3 full brother of the original land holder and two sons of the original land holder. The Appellate Authority after affording adequate opportunities to the parties to substantiate the claim with reference to documents on record ultimately concurred with the findings recorded by the Court below that neither the full brother of the original land holder namely Vijay Nandan Singh nor his two sons namely Rajiv Nandan Singh and Sanjiv Nandan Singh were major on 9.9.1970. The Appellate Court recorded that although full brother of the original land holder namely Vijay Nandan Singh was an advocate but yet he had not presented himself before the Appellate Court and produced his matriculation certificate. The claim of majority of the two sons of the original land holder was based on horoscope without producing any evidence in support thereof which was not found worth reliance. Both the Courts below held that the same was got up document and no reliance can be placed thereon. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the original land holder was also rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred revision application vide Board Revision No. 29 of 2001. The Revisional authority by impugned order/resolution dated 26.7.2004 (Annexure-1), rejected the same leading to filing of the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made only one submission while assailing the order passed by the 4 three Courts below. It is contended that the mother of the original land holder namely Kameshwari Bahurain was alive on 9.9.1970 and as such she was entitled to a separate ceiling unit. It is submitted that the Additional Collector, having regard to the claim raised on behalf of the land holder, called for a report from the concerned Circle Officer regarding the mother of the original land holder. Referring to the supplementary affidavit filed in this proceeding, it is submitted, that such report was submitted to the Court by the Circle Officer wherefrom it would appear that mother of original land holder was alive on the date of report (26.2.1991) and was aged about 70 years. It is submitted that the respondent Additional Collector failed to consider the said report in the light of materials on record and thereby record a finding with regard to the claim of additional unit to her being the mother of the original land holder alive till 1991. Before the respondent Appellate Court, such claim was raised as would appear from paragraph 2 of the appellate order. The Appellate Court, having regard to the materials on record, rejected the claim for additional units for the two sons and full brother of the original land holder by recording findings thereagainst but did not record any specific finding with regard to the claim of the land holder for his mother who was alive well beyond 9.9.1970 and thus entitled to a separate ceiling unit within the scheme of the 5 Act. Said finding has been affirmed by the Revisional Court and as such the said matter requires reconsideration by the authority. 4. Learned Assistant Counsel to G.P.-22, on the other hand, submits that the land holder was granted more than adequate opportunity to substantiate his/her claim for additional units for full brother of the original land holder namely Vijay Nandan Singh and the two sons of the original land holder namely Rajiv Nandan Singh and Sanjiv Nandan Singh but no convincing material was placed before the Court to substantiate the claim. It is submitted that both the Courts below have been forced to record in the impugned orders that in spite of adequate opportunity granted to the land holder, no documents on behalf of the full brother of the land holder was produced inasmuch as the aforesaid brother of the land holder did not present himself before the Court. The Appellate Court had to record that although it has been brought to the notice of the Court that the full brother of the original land holder is now an Advocate by profession but still the matriculation certificate and/or any other convincing document was placed to demonstrate that he was major on 9.9.1970. It is submitted that the claim of units for the two sons of the land holder was rightly rejected as the same was based only on horoscope without producing any oral evidence and/or supporting documents on which reliance 6 can be placed. Further, it is argued that all the three Courts below have assigned valid reasons for not accepting the horoscope based on which such claim was raised. Learned State Counsel, however, fairly states that claim for one unit for the mother of the original land holder has not been adverted to and decided by either accepting or rejecting the same. 5. On a perusal of the materials on record and after hearing the parties, this Court finds that the claim for grant of additional unit for the mother of original land holder was raised at the very initial stage. A report from the concerned Circle Officer was also called for as would appear from the order contained in Annexure-2. The Additional Collector has not recorded any finding based on materials on record including the report submitted by the Circle Officer with regard to the said claim for additional unit for the mother who, according to the petitioner, survived till 1995. It appears from the appellate order also that such issue was raised but no clear finding has been recorded on the said point by the appellate authority which has been affirmed by the Revisional Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the report of the Circle Officer, there are other documents/materials to show that mother of the original land holder survived till 1995. If the mother of the original land holder was alive on 9.9.1970 then under the 7 scheme of the Act, she was/is entitled to a separate ceiling unit. This position in law has not been disputed by learned counsel of the State. It is seen from the orders of the two Courts below that such issue was raised and the authority under the Act had called for a report in this regard also from the concerned Circle Officer. The petitioner has stated in the supplementary affidavit that report with regard to the status of mother in the year 1991-92 was submitted by the Circle Officer. Neither from the original order nor from the appellate order, it appears, that a finding has been recorded by these authorities with regard to the claim for separate ceiling unit for her mother who was alive on 9.9.1970. In the setting of facts taken note hereinabove, the petitioner has made out a case for remand for consideration of the matter with regard to the claim of the land holder for one additional unit to the mother of Tareshawar Singh @ Girija Nandan Singh (original land holder). Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that land holder would produce other materials also to show that the mother of the original land holder was alive on 9.9.1970 and died in the year 1995. 6. The application is thus disposed of in the following terms: The findings recorded by the Courts below for denying additional units for the full brother of the original land holder and his two sons are upheld. The matter is 8 remitted back to the respondent Collector for reconsideration of the matter which shall be confined to only grant or refusal of additional unit to the mother of the original land holder namely Kameshwari Bahurain. The petitioner shall be at liberty to place on record additional evidence/material available in his possession to demonstrate that the mother of the original land holder survived till 1995. The said respondent, after affording opportunity of hearing to both the parties, shall decide the said issue/claim in accordance with law expeditiously keeping in focus the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Act. 7. Let the petitioner appear before the respondent Collector within four weeks from today along with a copy of the present order enabling him to proceed and dispose of the matter in accordance with law and the observations made hereinabove. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)