IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7161 of 2005 1. SHEIKH SHABUDDIN, son of Late Shikh Salim 2. Sheikh Moyeen, son of Late Sheikh Rafique, both residents of village Bairagachhi, P.S.K.Nagar, Purnia …PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, PURNIA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PURNIA 4. ARJUN PASWAN, SON OF LATE BABU LAL PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAIRAGACHHI, P.S. K.NAGAR, PURNIA RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :Mr. Gopaljee For respondent no. 4 :Mr.Rajeev Roy For the State :Mrs. Kumari Amrita, G.P.10 ----------- 06. 17.03.2011 Petitioners who are the purchasers of 76 decimals of land from the land holder, namely, Sudarshan Narain Choudhary by 03 sale deeds, all dated 25.11.1970. They are aggrieved by the order dated 27.07.2004, passed by respondent-Collector, Purnia in Misc. Ceiling No.20/2003 (Arjun Paswan vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) Background facts leading to the present application may be set out in brief. A land ceiling proceeding was initiated against the landholder, vide L.C. Case No. 2078/73-74. The same achieved finality by issuing notification under section 15(1) of the Land Ceiling Act 1961(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Certain lands were declared surplus in the hands of the landholder and stood acquired. It appears that part of the land which was declared surplus was settled with respondent no.4 who was found eligible for such settlement. It is the case of the writ petitioners that the 2 lands purchased by them from the landholder(s) by three sale deeds were also declared surplus and acquired by reason of the said notification under section 15(1) of the Act. This prompted the writ petitioners to approach the District Collector for invoking jurisdiction vested in him under section 45(B) of the Act. Accordingly, on 15.01.1986 an application under section 45(B) of the Act was filed. Respondent no.4 on being noticed appeared in the said proceeding. It is petitioners’ case that in spite of service of notice, the land holder(s) did not appear in the said proceeding. Respondent Collector by order dated 21.02.1089 (Annexure-2), allowed the said application, whereby the lands covered by the sale deeds as aforesaid were directed to be retained by the landholder(s) within the ceiling unit allotted to them(landholders). In other words, the writ petitioners were allowed to hold the vended land(s) covered by aforesaid 03 sale deeds with the units allowed. Aggrieved by aforesaid order, respondent no.4 filed an application before the Collector which gave rise to Misc. Case No. 2/2002-03. Said matter was considered by the Addl. Collector when, after appearance of the parties, by proceeding dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-4), the same was dismissed. Respondent Addl. Collector while disposing of the said application preferred by respondent no.4 directed as under: ^^vr% vkosnd ds vkosnu dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS tc Hkw/kkjh ls iz”uxr tehu ds cnys nwljh tehu vf/kxzg.k dh tk;sxh rks vkosnd dks mDr tehu yky dkMZ }kjk fn;k tk ldrk gS A rn~uqlkj Jh vtwZu ikloku ds uke iz”uxr tehu dk yky dkMZ Lor% fujLr gks tkrk gS A ** This however, did not satisfy respondent no.4. He again 3 filed miscellaneous proceeding before the respondent Collector, vide Misc. Ceiling Case No. 20/2003 against the aforesaid order dated 02.05.2003. Respondent-Collector by order dated 27.07.2004 disposed of the said application in the following manner: ^^vr% vkosnd ¼yky dkMZ/kkjh½ ds vkosnu dks Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS A fuEu U;k;ky; dks vkns”k fn;k tkrk gS fd Hkw/kkjh ds ;wfuV esa tehu /kkj.k djus gsrq nh x;h tehu esa ls lerqY; mlh Js.kh dh tehu ysdj dzsrk dks nsus dh O;oLFkk dh tk; A rn~uqlkj vf/klwpuk esa vko”;d la”kks/ku dj nh tk; A mijksDr funsZ”k ds lkFk okn dk fuLrkj fd;k tkrk gS A ** Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction issued by the respondent Collector, the petitioners have approached this Court. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent no.4 and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid direction issued by the respondent Collector in the impugned order is erroneous and bad in law. The Collector after reopening of the proceeding by order dated 21.02.1989 (Annexure-2) had already directed for inclusion of the land claimed by the writ petitioners within the land(s) to be retained by the landholder(s). In that view of the matter, the land(s) of the petitioners was/were allowed to be retained by the petitioners. It is submitted that aforesaid direction issued by the respondent Collector de hors the provision of the Act. It is submitted that the Addl. Collector by his order dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-4) had taken a right view by observing that after obtaining land(s) from the landholder who was directed to 4 retain the land(s) sold in favour of the petitioners; respondent no.4 was required to be settled with a piece of land. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits that eligibility of respondent no.4 for allotment of land(s) declared surplus and acquired is not under dispute. Respondent no.4 therefore, required to be settled with a piece of land as he is eligible person for such settlement. Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 fairly stated that the view taken in the impugned order is alien to the provision contained in the Act and the law propounded by the Court relating to the Parcha holder like respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the State submits that respondent no.4 will be entitled to fresh settlement in view of observation/direction contained in Annexure-4). I have heard the parties and perused the materials on records. It appears that the writ petitioners are the purchasers of the subject land(s) by three sale deeds which was/were executed by the landholder(s) after 09.09.1970. Considering the provision contained in the Act particularly section 9(2) thereof, the aforesaid lands were required to be retained by landholder(s). This was not done and the subject lands were declared surplus by issuance of notification under section 15(1) of the Act. Writ petitioners, therefore, approached the Collector under section 45(B) of the Act ventilating the grievance which was considered and the matter was reopened whereafter the respondent Collector after issuing notice to all 5 concerned including the landholder(s) and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties directed for inclusion of the lands covered by three sale deeds within the lands/units to be retained by the landholder(s). The said view seems to be correct. It further appears that on an application filed by respondent no.4 the Addl. Collector in his order dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-4) directed in similar terms. Respondent Collector in the impugned order has taken a view which is not supported from the provision of law. A purchaser of the land is entitled to hold land which he has purchased. The Authority under the Act would not be justified in directing the purchaser of land to have some other land whereas the Parcha holder shall be allowed to retain the land settled with them, although notification issued under section 15(1) of the Act with respect thereto has already been interfered with by the Collector while disposing of the application preferred by the petitioners under section 45(B) of the Act. This court is thus satisfied that the impugned order is not in accordance with law and is, therefore, fit to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, present application is allowed. Order dated 27.07.2004, as contained in Annexure-5 is quashed and set aside. The respondent concerned shall now proceed in terms of the order dated 02.05.2003 (Annexure-4). There shall be no order as to costs. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )