IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2983 of 2009 1. SAYEED SHAKILUR RAHMAN, S/O MD. KHALILUL RAHMAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-DANIALPUR, TEGHRA, P.O., P.S. & ANCHAL-TEGHRA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. AT PRESENT C/O S.M. NASIR ALIAS IMRAN, VILLAGE-HAZPURA HARIHARPUR, R/O-KARUA (VIA-PUSA), DISTT-SAMASTIPUR. 2. BIBI MEHAR BANO, WIFE OF MANJOOR ALAM FARIDI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. – CHAK BAHAUDDIN, VIA- DALSING SARAI, ANCAHL/P.S.-DALSINGH SARAI, DISTRICT- SAMASTIUR. 3. BIBI HUSAN BANO, WIFE OF IMTIYAZ AHAMAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PURAN BAS, P.O. KHOKHNAHA, P.S. ANCAHL, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. 4. TANBIR ALAM, S/O KHURSHID ALAM (HUSBAND OF LATE BIBI SAHAR BANO), RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- RASOOLPUR, P.O.- BHADURPUR, P.S.-ANCHAL-VIDAYAPATI NAGAR, VIA- DALSINGH SARAI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR 5. SAHABUDDIN ALAM 6. SAJUDDIN 7. JULI 8. RAHMAT 9. SIPAK PETITIONER NOS. 5 AND 6 ARE SONS, WHEREAS PETITONER NOS. 7 TO 9 ARE DAUGHTERS, ALL MINORS, OF LATE SAHAR BANO, WIFE OF KHURSHID ALAM. ALL UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR FATEHR KHURSHID ALAM. PETITIONER NOS. 5 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- RASOOLPUR, P.O.BHADURPUR, P.S./ANCHAL-VIDYAPATI NAGAR, VIA-DALSINGH SARAI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR .................. PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR-CUM-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MONGHYRE. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR-CUM-MAGISTRATE, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BEGUSARI. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEGHRA, BEGUSARAI. 6. THE ANCAHL ADHIKARI, TEGHRA, BEGUSARAI 7. MOST. BIBI RAMFAN, WIDOW OF LATE MD. SOIYAB. 8. MD. SAYED ABEED, ALLEGEDLY ADOPTED SON OF LATE MD. SOIYAB. RESPONDENT NOS. 7 AND 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- PARIALPUR, P.O./ANCHAL, P.S. TEGHRA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. 9. PAPPU SINGH, SON OF NANDAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE/P.O MADHURAPUR TOLA-BICHLA TOL, P.S./ANCHAL/SUB-DIVISION-TEGHRA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. - 2 - 10. KRISHNA MOHAN SINGH, SON OF RAMADHIR SINGH. 11. GANESH SINGH, SON OF RAMADHAR SINGH. 12. GANPAT SINGH, SON OF RAMADHAR SINGH ALL 10 TO 12 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE/P.O.- MADHURAPUR TOLA-BICHALA TOL, P.S./ANCHAL/SUB- DIVISION-TEGHRA, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. 13. KAUSHAL SINGH, SON OF RAM UDAY SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAG/P.O./P.S.-BARAUNI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI 14. SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH, SON OF NATHO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-P.O./P.S.-BARAUNI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI. .......................... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 05.03.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioners have made prayer to the following effect:- “That this application by petitioners for issue of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction, commanding Respondent-Authorities to re- open calling proceeding initiated by Respondent-State firstly against Md. Soiyab, died in 1974 shortly initation/substituted by Most. Raufan, widow of Late Md. Soiyab, Resident of village-Daniyalpur, P.s./P.S./Anchal/Sib-Division-Teghra, District-Begusarai, vide Ceiling Case No. 53 of 1973-74 (State Vs. Most. Bibi Raufan) in respect of Lands admittedly belonging to Md. Yakub, recorded Land holder U/s C.S. Khatian finally published in 1909, in absence of and without notice to petitioenrs decendants Md. Fazlur Haque alias Dukha Babu, second son of Late Yakub ½ share in the property and allowing ceiling units to persons under Muslim Law not entitle to any share least to speak even possess whereby and whereunder petitioners have not - 3 - only deprive of their share but of those of Md. Soiyab, other half after his death as died issueless under the Law”. Counsel for the petitioners would submit that when Ceiling Case No. 53 of 1973-74 was initiated, the branch of Mir Fazlur Haque, Abdul Rajjak, Md. Khalil and consequently the petitioners who were equal share holders in the land originally of Md. Aiyub were not given any notice and as such any order passed thereof will not be binding on them. The prayer, therefore, is a direction should be given to the official respondents to re-open the Ceiling Proceeding. This Court would find such prayer to be wholly misconceived because Ceiling Case No. 53 of 1973-74 was initiated against one Md. Soiyab who died in the year 1974 and as such Ceiling Case was continued against his wife Mostt. Raufan, whereas the Ceiling proceeding was dropped holding that there was no surplus land in the family, as would be evident from the order of the Additional Collector 20.03.1987 and re-affirmed by him again on 18.12.1987. It thus becomes too apparent that in the garb of the prayer for re-opening the Ceiling Proceeding the petitioners are actually interested in enforcing their own private rights of partition of family land as against the respondent nos. 7 to 14. That, however, cannot be a scope under Section 45(B) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. That being so, the ingenious attempt on the part of petitioners quashing the concluded Ceiling Proceeding under the - 4 - Act i.e. Ceiling Case No. 53/1973-74 must be held to be malafide, wholly belated and thoroughly misconceived. This writ application thus is totally frivolous and must be dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-. S.Sb/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)