IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2210 of 1998 SMT.DHARMSHILA DEVI, wife of Sri Banshi Singh, resident of village Digha Ghat, P.S. Digha, District Patna. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Competent officer under Urban Land Ceiling Act, Patna. 3.The Collector, Patna. 4.The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna. 5.Patna Polson pvt. Ltd. Situated at Digha, P.s. Digha, District-Patna. With C.W.J.C. No.2966 of 1997 Smt. Dharmshila Devi wife of Sri Banshi Singh, resident of village Digha Ghat, P.S. Digha District – Patna. Versus 1.The State of Bihar 2.The Competent officer under Urban Land Ceiling Act Cum Collector, Patna. 3.Collector, Patna. 4.Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna. 5.Patna Polson Pvt. Ltd. Situated at Digha, P.S. Digha, District Patna. ----------- 4 1/4/2010 M.J.C. No.2210 of 1998. Heard Mr. D.K.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. For the reasons mentioned in this application C.W.J.C. No.2966 of 1997 is restored to its original file. C.W.J.C. No.2966 of 1997. In this writ application prayer of the petitioner reads as follows:- “That this writ petition is directed to restrain the respondents from taking possession of the house of the petitioner in the garb of a proceeding under Urban Land Ceiling Act, situated on the part of Survey Plot No.1570 under khata no.829, Tauji no.5174, Thana no.1 situated at Village Digha P.S. Digha, District Patna.” 2 Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire proceeding under Urban Land Ceiling Act was conducted behind back of the petitioner and further area in question of Digha is not within the Patna Municipal Corporation and as such provision of Urban Land Ceiling Act will not be applicable. This aspect of the matter, in fact, has been explained in the counter filed by the official respondents, wherein in paragraph nos. 4 to 7 it has been explained as follows:- “4.That, the petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction restraining the respondents to not to take possession of the house of the petitioner situated on survey plot no.1570 under khata no.829 Tauzi no.5174 situated in village Digha in the district of patna. The main ground for seeking a direction is that the land on which the house of the petitioner stands is exempted from the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) and stated that she had no notice to the proceeding. 5.That, it is stated and submitted in this context that a proceeding under the Act was initiated against Shri B.P. Jain, Superintendent, Polson model Dairy Private Limited, Digha, Patna for the determination of the Ceiling area under the Act. The said company in pursuance of notice under section 6(1) of the Act submitted return on 8.10.80 stating that the company held and possess 24918 sq. metres of lands. It has also been stated in the return that on some of the lands there are construction in which the factory of the company is running. 6.That, subsequently on the basis of the return filed by the company the matter was enquired into and draft statement under section 8(1) of the Act was made by the competent authority showing that the company was having 10,460 sq. metres of vacant lands in excess of the ceiling area. The company after the service of the draft statement did not file any objection under section 8(3) of the Act as a result of which a final statement under section 9 was made. It may be stated here that even at the stage of section 9 of the Act the company or anybody did not file any objection and ultimately an order under section 10(1) was made acquiring 10460 sq. metres of land. 7.That, after the notification under section 10(1) the land vested in the State in terms of section 10 (3) of the Act as no objection against under section 10 (1) was filed by anybody interested in the land and then it was published in the newspaper regarding vesting of the excess land.” In fact, the respondents having recorded the 3 aforementioned objection that the petitioner was a busy body, inasmuch as, the land and the house in question had already vested at the time when her vendor had not completed the deal and further objection has been raised that the writ application was not maintainable, inasmuch as, order of the authorities ought to have been assailed before the competent forum. To that extent, this Court would also find merits in the stand taken by the respondent in paragraph nos. 8 to 13 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- “8.That, the petitioner has directly come to this Hon’ble Court stating that she had purchased the disputed land on which according to her, a house stands, purchased from Polson Private Limited who was also a private company and was purchaser from the original landholder M/S Polson Model Dairy Pvt. Ltd. According to the petitione she is purchaser for valid consideration from the patna Polson private Limited and after the purchase she has constructed a house and living thereon. 9.That, the grievance of the petitioner is that since there is house on the land and therefore it is beyond the purview of the act as the act applies only with respect to the vacant land. The second ground of the petitioner is that the Digha is not within Patna Municipal Area and thereafter, the provision of the Act does not apply in the case of village Digha. 10.That, in answer to the first point it is submitted that the land on which the petitioner has constructed a house, if any which was a vacant land within the meaning of the act on the appointed date and the proceeding has commenced against the original land owner of the land and therefore, subsequent structure constructed on the said land will not come in the way of the acquisition of the land as this land is vacant land within the meaning of the act. 11.That, the original landholder himself has filed a return and has disclosed that there are vacant land in the premises of the company and the authorities have proceeded with respect to the vacant lands of the company and therefore, the stand of the petitioner that since now she has constructed a house and thereafter, the lands are immune from the mischief of the proceeding, is not correct. 12.That, right title and interest on the land of the petitioner can be tested from the fact that the aforesaid sale deed was not registered in the district of Patna rather it was registered at Calcutta and this speaks volumes about the bonafide of the transfer. It appears that the transfers have been made in favour of the petitioner only in order to defeat the provision of the act. 4 13.That, so far as the second limb of argument of the petitioner that the village Digha does not fall within the municipal area and therefore, the provision of the Act will not apply, it is submitted that the Digha is well within the peripheral area of Patna Municipal Corporation and therefore, the act apply in the case of Digha and the vacant lands situated in the village Digha are well within the purview of Urban Ceiling Act.’’ At this stage it is significant to note that no rejoinder to the said counter affidavit, despite service of the same on 25.9.1997 on the counsel for the petitioner, has been filed. In that view of the matter, two things have become clear, namely, the land in question was the subject matter of a proceeding of Land Ceiling Act before purchase of the land by the petitioner and the State after completing entire process had taken possession of the same and therefore any purchase made by the petitioner thereafter required prior approval and permission of the authorities under Urban Ceiling Act, and further that the land in question has not been executed in the name of the petitioner and as such he could not have got the permission of the authorities under Urban Land Ceiling Act. That apart, the plea that the Digha area is not the part of the Patna Municipal Corporation and therefore also not covered within the urban agglomeration under Urban Ceiling Act, seems to be equally unsustainable, inasmuch as, concept of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is not dependent on the municipal limit. Moreover, this aspect of the matter has also been explained in paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit of the respondents which as noted above has also not been controverted by the petitioner. 5 Thus, this Court would find that the petitioner instead of assailing the order of the authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act in a proceeding initiated in respect of house in question, had straight way filed this writ application, which in terms of the Urban Land Ceiling Act is not maintainable. That being so, this application being wholly misconceived is, accordingly dismissed. Abhay Kumar ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)