1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.557 of 2008 AMBIKA RAM & ANR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 05 10.07.2008 The petitioners are Purcha holders/settlees, who were granted Purchas on 10.05.2001, in respect of lands allegedly declared surplus in proceeding against Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7. The submission is that once Purchas were distributed to them, they became necessary party to all further proceedings in the ceiling proceeding, as they had acquired a right on the lands of the land holder-respondent. They are aggrieved by cancellation of their Purchas/settlement. Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have appeared and filed a counter affidavit. The matter is being disposed of after hearing the parties and with their consent. The submission of the petitioners, that once they were settled on the land and as such had acquired right and had to be heard before the settlements were cancelled cannot be disputed. It is elementary principle that a person who has a right 2 cannot be divested of his right without being heard in the matter. But, the true question for consideration before this Court would be that before a person can assert that he had a lawful settlement he must show that the settlement was legally made in accordance with law. In order to appreciate this, the reference may be made to Section 15 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. A reference to the said Section would show that when the proceedings are concluded as against a land holder, at the first instance, the lands declared surplus are basically of two types, one in respect of which there may be no dispute. These may be lands which are either surrendered by the land holder himself or in relation to which he raises no dispute. First Proviso to Section 15 (1) clearly predicted that it is only these lands which would vest automatically in the State Government on notification issued in terms of Section 15 (1) of the said Act. The second type of lands is those in relation to which the land holder disputes the finding and 3 which are subject to statutory remedies under the Act. As on the day when notification in terms of Section 15 (1) is issued, the status of this Second type of land is uncertain as they are subject to appeal/revision. That Section 15 (1) notification in respect of those lands can only show intention to acquire but the Section itself provides that all such steps would be subject to orders to be passed in appeal or revision. A conjoint reading of the two schemes as envisaged under Section 15 would show that right to make settlement to third party after a notification under Section 15 (1) arises only in respect of first category of land, but, not in respect of lands falling in the second category till those proceedings i.e. appellate and revisional are finalized. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the lands on which settlements were given to the petitioners were lands which were subject matter of dispute. The ceiling proceedings had not finally been concluded. The matter was still traveling from appellate forum to revisional forum and 4 back and forth including before the High Court. It is during pendency of these proceedings and notwithstanding as the pendency thereof, settlements were made and Purchas issued till then there was no absolute vesting of land in the government. These lands could not have been settled with any one because the ceiling surplus order had not attained finality in terms of the scheme of the Act. Yet, the State, in total disregard to the scheme of the Act, made settlements in favour of the petitioners. In my view, these settlements were per se illegal and unauthorized in law. State ought to have waited for the ceiling proceedings to finally conclude before they could make the settlements. The chaos created by the State by their illegal and arbitrary act would be apparent from this case itself, where without finally acquiring right in the property or without finally depriving the land holder of his rights in the property, third party rights were created unauthorisedly by the State, on 5 basis whereof, now, the large body of Purcha holders claim right to participate in the ceiling proceeding at every stage, whereas, ceiling proceeding is a proceeding between the land holder and the State, exclusively. The legislature never contemplated of this situation to be created. Thus, in my view, the Purcha holders acquire their right illegally. Their very entry upon land was illegal and unlawful. They assert their right to continue on the land even though when ceiling proceedings were finally concluded in favour of the land holders, holding that there is no ceiling surplus land. It may be noted that the family of private respondents had about 64.5 acres of land on the appointed day i.e. on 09.09.1970. There were six adult members in the family. Therefore, it was ultimately held that the lands held by the family were within the ceiling area. Yet, their lands were illegally distributed and settled even before this finality could 6 be achieved. Once, it is found that the petitioners were illegally brought on the land; the settlements were illegal and founded upon illegality, they cannot be permitted to demand a right of hearing much less a right to oppose the private-respondent land holders in the ceiling proceedings. The rights of the petitioners have been founded on illegality. This Court cannot come to the aid of the writ petitioners, for they have been settled on lands with regard to which there were disputes at the initial stages itself. They cannot be said to have legally acquired only right to be heard having acquired the interest illegally and against the statute. Thus, in my view the writ petition must fail and is dismissed accordingly. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)