IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14773 of 2004 RAMAGYA SHARMA & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7 03.07.2008 The petitioners’ main grievance, in the present case, is as against notification issued under Section 15 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) issued in relation to Land Ceiling Case No 8 of 1996-1997 wherein the lands of petitioners have been declared surplus and notified for acquisition. The contention is that the Collector, Samastipur district had, pursuant to orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court, reinitiated proceedings in respect of one Mahant Ram Shankar Das. In those proceedings, there were about 98 objectors. Petitioners were objector No 29. They had purchased various lands at various dates and appeared before the Collector in the said proceedings. Their case was considered by the Collector and as would be evident from the order of the Collector dated 11.05.2002 passed in the said proceedings, none of petitioners’ land was specifically declared to be surplus. What was said by the Collector in relation to certain lands was that, they being subsequent purchasers, they would be considered alongwith the case of the vendors. The vendor in the case was Kapildeo Singh who was objector No 3. Petitioners then state that so far as their lands are concerned in the case of Kapildeo Singh, they were held to be exempted from the proceedings. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the 2 petitioners is that by necessary inference, all petitioners’ lands were exempted if a conjoint reading of the cases of objector No 3 Kapildeo Singh and objector No 29 Ramagya Sharma and others (petitioners) are taken into account but the case of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the aforesaid, the same very lands which have been considered by the Collector in respect of the petitioners have now been included in Section 15 (1) of the Act notification showing them to be ceiling surplus and to be acquired and consequent thereto, steps are being taken to distribute purchas in relation thereto. The learned Standing Counsel (Ceiling) very fairly placed order in question. He admits that the order of the Collector lacks in details but prima facie it does appear that no land of the petitioners has been declared surplus. He contends that it is open for the petitioners to move the Collector for rectification of the notification pointing out the discrepancy. He has also very fairly drawn attention of this Court to the supplementary counter affidavit in which it has been stated on behalf of the State that Mahant Ram Shanker Das, being aggrieved by the said order and the notification issued under Section 11 (1) of the Act and that under Section 15 (1) of the Act with which we are concerned, had moved the Board of Revenue in revision and the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No 42 of 2004 has set aside the notification under Section 15 (1) of the Act in so far as lands of Mahant Ram Shanker Das is concerned and remanded the matter back for the consideration of the Collector, Samastipur. Having heard the counsel for the parties and considered 3 the matter and with their consent, I dispose of the proceedings with following observations and directions. As would be seen from the order of the Collector in question, while discussing the lands of the petitioners as objector No 29, no land has been held specifically to be ceiling surplus. Consideration in relation to lands of petitioners was subject to findings in the case of Kapildeo Singh who was objector No 3. Petitioners assert and there being no specific denial that the lands of petitioners, which were connected to Kapildeo Singh, were lands which were specifically exempted while considering the case of Kapildeo Singh. This, not being disputed, in my view, no land of the petitioners, which was subject matter of consideration in the said order, can be deemed to be ceiling surplus. From this, it follows that if any of those lands are included in the notification issued under Section 15 (1) of the Act then it is a mistake because lands, which are not declared ceiling surplus, cannot be included in the said notification. In my view, now the proper course would be that the petitioners should give details of their lands which are included in the notification dated 25.09.2004 issued under Section 15 (1) of the Act giving plot number, area, date of purchase, from whom purchased and its boundary and correlate the same to the exempted lands of Kapildeo Singh specifically with reference to plot number, area, his date of purchase and boundary. On such a representation being filed, the Collector would verify the details and pass necessary rectification order amending the notification aforesaid by excluding those lands 4 mistakenly included. I may, however, point out that while doing this exercise, Collector would not reopen or reconsider the matter on merit. Such consideration should be done and necessary orders issued for rectification of the notification, which would cover all lands of the petitioners from whatever source purchased and which was subject matter of earlier consideration, be issued within three months from the date when such a representation is filed which should be filed within one month from today. This, in my view, disposes of the writ application. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)