CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.2958 OF 1988 ----------- IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLCIATION UDNER ARTICLE-226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ------------ 1. Prem Lal Sah, Son of Puran Sah 2. Narayan Mahto, Son of Gahnu Mahto 3. Jageshwar Mahto, Son of Jahsu Mahto 4. Gopal Mahto, Son of Baldeo Mahto 5. Ramesh Mahto, Son of Baldeo Mahto 6. Bhutka Sah, Son of Puran Sah 7. Ritlal Sah, Son of Pairu Sah 8. Harihar Mahto, Son of Hiru Mahto 9. Gobardhan Mahto, Son of Bhadru Mahto 10. Shashidhar Mahto, Son of Ghutar Mahto 11. Ashok Sah, Son of Ritlal Sah 12. Dhiraj Mahto, S/o-Late Bhuja Mahto 13. Sahdeo Mahto, Son of Katik Mahto 14. Haradhan Mahto, Son of Shiku Mahto 15. Yogeshwar Mahto, Son of Banshi Mahto 16. Bhola Mahto, Son of Ghutru Mahto 17. Umesh Yadav, S/o-Late Baldeo Yadav All residents of Village-Ramnagar Banshi, P.S.-Dondkhora, District-Katihar. -Petitioners. VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Katihar. 3. The Additional Collector, Katihar. 4. The S.D.O., Katihar. 5. The Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar. 6. The Anchal Adhikari, Katihar. 7. Kishore Mohan Jha, Son of Late Kunjan Jha. 8. Ghananand Jha, Son of Gangadutta Jha. 9. Ashok Kumar Jha, Son of Tara Nand Jha. Respondent Nos.7 & 9 are residents of Vill.-Rampur, P.S.-Katihar, District-Katihar and Respondent No.8 is resident of Village-Jalalgarh, District-Purnea. 10. Bhikh Risi, Son of Prasadi Risi 11. Panchu Risi, Son of Jahuri Risi 12. Ramji Risi, Son of Faudar Risi 13. Kalpu Risi, Son of Chhotekan Risi 14. Sukal Risi, Son of Saukhi Risi 15. Baski Murmu, Son of Jetha Murmu 16. Birsin Manjhi, Son of Chhota Jetha Manjhi 17. Md. Imbrahim, Son of Hesas Ali 18. Jamshed Ali, Son of Heras Ali 19. Samsher Ali, Son of Heras Ali 20. Umat Ali, Son of Gafar Ali 21. Md. Yunus, Son of Ramjan Ali - 2 - 22. Md. Hassan, Son of Md. Yunush 23. Abul Hussain, Son of Emajuddin 24. Ahmad Sattar, Son of Usman Mandal 25. Ahmad Jabbar, Son of Emajuddin 26. Abdul Kalim, Son of Emajuddin 27. Abdul Jabbar, Son of Emajuddin 28. Hussain Mandal, Son of Md. Yunush 29. Erphan Ali, Son of Usman Munshi 30. Sharmaj Ali, Son of Ishlam Ali All residents of Village-Jagarnathpur. 31. Nandu Mahto, Son of Harihar Mahto 32. Panchananad Mahto, Son of Nandu Mahto 33. Sohal Lal Mahto, Son of Baijnath Mahto 34. Bishun Mahto, Son of Kartik Mahto 35. Sri Lal Mahto, Son of Baijnath Mahto 36. Suleman Mian, Son of Gulab Mian 37. Kishun Turi, Son of Tetar Turi All residents of Village-Ramnagar Banshi, all under P.S.-Katihar, District-Katihar. - Respondents ******* For the Petitioners : Mr. Bidhanesh Mishra & Tanuja Mishra. For the Private-Respondents : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh & Braj Nandan Singh. ******* PRESENT HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ******* Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. The petitioners and the private-respondents in this writ petition joined issue as to the claim of bataidari rights over the same piece of land. This is a contentious issue as who ever establishes his right as a bataidar would then be entitled to upgraded to the status of raiyat, the land being ceiling surplus land. Heard the parties. It appears that a land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Kishore Mohan Jha, Ghananand Jha and Ashok Kumar Jha. Upon culmination of these proceedings, by District Gazette Notification No.05 of 1985 certain lands were declared ceiling surplus to be acquired. The land holders preferred miscellaneous cases before the - 3 - Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Katihar claiming exemption in respect of certain lands which had been notified to be ceiling surplus. They were not successful in their endeavour. While those proceedings were pending, the writ petitioners, who claim to be bataidar on some of those ceiling surplus land, approached the Collector and, in view of the provisions of the Ceiling Act, claimed that the land should now be settled to them as raiyat. The lands being ceiling surplus, apparently, enquiry was called for and a report submitted but without much adjudication on the issue the Additional Collector directed the Circle Officer to settle the lands with the petitioners who had claimed to be the bataidars. This order was passed on 13.01.1987 in Misc. Case No.407 of 1986-87 by the Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Katihar. Petitioners are aggrieved by an order passed subsequently, which is Annexure-1, in Ceiling Case No.04 of 1987-88 by the Circle Officer, Katihar, which was registered on 19.09.1987, purporting to be under Section 22 of the Ceiling Act for settlement. These were initiated by the private-respondents who also claimed to e bataidars in respect of that same very portion of ceiling surplus land. The Additional Collector makes a recommendation and the Circle Officer, Katihar then affirms and direct settlement of the said land to the bataidars, that is, the private-respondents. Thus, we find that first the settlement is ordered in favour of the petitioners assuming them to be bataidars by the Additional Collector Land Ceiling by his order dated 13.01.1987 and then in respect of the same land Sub Divisional Officer purporting to be acting under Section 22 passes similar settlement orders treating - 4 - private-respondents to be bataidars on the same very land. Having considered the matter, in my view, there is serious disputes of fact as to which of the side is bataidar and, consequentially, entitled to the settlement of the ceiling surplus land. The question that the land was declared ceiling surplus and remain as such is not in dispute. In such a situation, in my view, it would only be fit and proper that both the parties would appear before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Katihar within one month from today. Upon appearance being noted, the D.C.L.R., Katihar would himself enquire into the matter after due notice to the parties and decide as to who is in possession of the land and in what capacity he has come upon the land, that is, the encroacher or bataidars of the ex-land holder. Upon the findings so arrived, he would then recommend to the Additional Collector to issue orders for settlement in terms of Section 22 read with Section 27 of the Ceiling Act in favour of the bataidars whose claims are found established. Parties would be free to bring on record such evidence or report as they may be advised. The D.C.L.R. must conclude the proceedings within six months and the Additional Collector himself conclude the proceedings within three months thereafter. With these observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Patna High Court The 30th June, 2011 Trivedi/NAFR (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)