Letters Patent Appeal No.1558 OF 2000 ******* Against the order dated 25th August, 1998, passed In CWJC no. 2183 of 1998. ******* ASHOK KUMAR SINGH & Ors--------Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS------Respondents ******* FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. K.N. Choubey FOR THE STATE : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC 16 ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. In the first round of litigation the original appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the order of the revisional Authority passed under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. While disposing of the said writ petition a Division Bench of this Court noted that the 2 revisional Authority recorded in its order that the main issue between parties is classification of the land held by the original appellant. The Division Bench further found as a fact that the order of the revisional Authority does not address the said issue at all. The Division Bench, thus, remitted back the matter to the revisional Authority upon quashing the order of the revisional Authority assailed in the writ petition. While doing so this Court granted liberty to the original appellant to raise such other points as the original appellant may be advised. 2. On remand, the revisional Authority addressed itself only to classification of lands held by the original appellant and subsequently concluded the revision by the order assailed by the original appellant in the second writ petition. Before the writ 3 Court the original appellant contended that the revisional Authority erred in confining the revision only to disputes pertaining to classification of lands held by the original appellant, as it ought to have had addressed other issues raised by the original appellant. The writ Court while dealing with the writ petition, felt that the remand order passed by this Court in the earlier litigation was a limited remand order confined to disputes pertaining to classification of lands. There being no grievance as regards classification ultimately made by the revisional Authority, the writ Court, by the judgment and order under appeal, dismissed the writ petition and hence the original appellant is before us. 3. On our query, the learned counsel for the original appellant submitted that 4 apart from the dispute pertaining to classification of land, which stands finally concluded, there was an issue which went to the root of the matter and, that is, non- preparation of a fresh draft statement in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, while fresh proceeding was initiated under Section 32(B) of the Act. A look at Section 32 (B) of the Act would amply demonstrate that if a fresh proceeding is to be initiated in terms thereof, the same is required to be initiated at the stage of Section 10 of the Act and Sub- section (1) of Section 10 of the Act requires preparation of a draft statement. The fact remains that no fresh draft statement was prepared although a de-novo proceeding was initiated under Section 32(B) of the Act. The proceeding initiated under Section 32(B) of the Act proceeded on the 5 basis of the original draft statement. If the proceeding is required to be initiated de-novo at the stage of Section-10, as is the mandate of Section 32(B) of the Act, there cannot be any dispute that there is a mandate for preparation of a fresh draft statement. However, in as much as there was a draft statement in the instant case, though no fresh draft statement was prepared, the question that requires to be gone in is whether by reason of non-preparation of a fresh draft statement, the original appellant suffered any prejudice or not. 4. The learned counsel for the original appellant drew our attention to Clause (C-II) to Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act and submitted that by the self-same amendment, by which Section 32(B) of the Act was inserted, Clause (C-II) was also inserted of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 6 of the Act and, accordingly, it became obligatory to comply with Clause (C-II) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act while initiating a fresh proceeding. There cannot be any dispute that the same became the statutory mandate, which was required to be complied with. However, the fact remains that even if a fresh draft statement had been prepared at or about the time of initiation of the de-novo proceeding under Section 32(B) of the Act, the mandate contained in Clause (C-II) of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act could not be complied with, in as much as until that date admittedly the Collector did not record any finding under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Act. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be that for non- preparation of a fresh draft statement, the original appellant did not suffer any 7 prejudice and, accordingly, non-preparation of a fresh draft statement did not at all affect either the original appellant or the proceedings, far less the same going to the root of the case. 5. The learned counsel for the original appellant submitted that by reason of inclusion of Clause (C-II) in Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, it must be deemed that the power exercisable under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act should be exercised prior to preparation of draft statement under Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. With due respect to the learned counsel for the original appellant, we do not accept such contention, in as much as there is no such indication in Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act nor in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. A look at Clause (iii) 8 of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act would make it abundantly clear that despite amendment to the Act having been effected subsequently, no time limit had been inserted by the Legislature for exercise of power by the Collector under Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Act. 6. In the circumstances, the original appellant having had not urged before us that the revisional Authority made error while going into the dispute pertaining to classification, there is nothing further to be done in the appeal. The same fails and is dismissed. (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, The 25th July, 2008. AAhmad/(NAFR)