IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2246 of 2003 1. DHAIRYA NATH JHA @ BABU SAHEB JHA SON OF LATE MISHRI LAL JHA 2. ARUN KUMAR JHA SON OF LATE SATYA NARAIN JHA 3. SITA RAM JHA SON OF LATE ABHINANDAN JHA 4. UMA KANT JHA SON OF LATE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA 5. RAM GULAM JHA SON OF LATE HARIGOVIND JHA 6. SUSHIL JHA SON OF LATE HARIBANSH JHA ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- KATHRA, P.S.- AND ANCHAL- MANIGACHI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA AT LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SADAR DARBHANGA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, MANIGACHI BLOCK, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. For the petitioners : Mr. J.P.Shukla, Sr, Advocate Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra, G.P.-2 8 28.01.2011 Heard both sides. Petitioners in the present application claim purchase of certain lands from the original land holder namely Laxmeshwar Choudhary against whom land Ceiling case No. 31/1974-75 was initiated and after conclusion of the proceeding, a notification under Section 15(1) of the Act (Annexure-9) was published whereby, as per the petitioner, 99.89 and half acres of land located in different Anchals namely Poaria, Hayaghat, Gauspur, Manigachi and Katra were declared surplus. It appears that an application under Section 37 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was preferred by the petitioners and others vide Misc. Case No. 118/2002 before the respondent - 2 - District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Darbhanga (respondent No. 2). The said application was rejected by order dated 16.1.2003 (Annexure-11). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. Paragraph Nos. 14, 15 and 16 of the said application (Annexure-10) read as under: “14. That after the said purchase petitioners No. 12 to 15 got their names mutated in the Sherista of State of Bihar and have been paying rent regularly in their names under Jamabandi No. 1201. 15. That petitioners No. 12 to 15 have been coming in possession of the lands purchased by them and during the recent revisional survey operation their names were recorded in the revisional survey record of rights. 16. That likewise petitioner No. 16 alongwith three brothers acquired an area of 3 bighas 8 kathas 10 dhurs by virtue of registered sale deed dated 16.11.57 executed by Ramsharan Chaudhary and others and came in possession over their purchased lands since the date of purchase..“ Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Kameshwar Choudhary and Ors versus State of Bihar since reported in 2010 (4) P.L.J.R. 103 submits that in somewhat identical circumstance, some of the purchasers from the land holder namely Laxmeshwar Choudhary moved this Court wherein this Court after consideration of the matter, disposed of the same in the following terms: “2. The main issue in this case is that the Collector ought to have decided whether the lands of the petitioners have been included in the ceiling proceedings initiated against Lakshmeshwar Choudhary in Land Ceiling - 3 - Case No. 31 of 1974-75. This aspect of the matter does not even find mention in the impugned order, dated 13.8.2001. The result is that some of the lands, which are the subject matter of Land Ceiling Case No. 2 of 1976-77 initiated against the petitioners, have also been included in the Land Ceiling Case No. 31 of 1974-75. On one hand, as a result of the order dated 13.8.2001 (Annexure-2), the State would take steps to distribute the lands of the petitioners which have been clubbed with the lands of Lakshmeshwar Choudhary, on the other hand, the same lands would also be the subject matter of the Land Ceiling Case No. 2 of 1976-77. 3. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to appear before the Collector, Darbhanga and demonstrate before him by filing petition, specifically mentioning the mouza, khata number, khesra number, area of land which has been clubbed with the Land Ceiling Case No. 31 of 1974-75. The Collector may call for a report from the concerned Circle Officer or the Land Reforms Deputy Collector where the lands are situated, if he so desires to ascertain the actual physical possession of the lands in question. The petitioners should also demonstrate before the Collector that these very lands are also part of the lands which are the subject matter of the Land Ceiling Case No. 2 of 1976-77. 4. In any event, this Court is giving this direction to avoid a situation, where the lands of one or the other persons is clubbed with the lands of the persons facing the ceiling proceedings. In fact, it would help the Collector tremendously if he takes up both the ceiling cases together so that a clear picture of the facts would be available to him.” It is the stand of the petitioners that they have acquired 20 and odd acres of land from the original land holder by different instruments well before 1961 and they got their lands mutated which was taken into consideration in Land Ceiling Case No. 8 of 1974-75 initiated and concluded against - 4 - the petitioner No. 1 namely Dhairya Nath Jha @ Babu Saheb Jha and his father namely Mishri Lal Jha. Submission is, therefore, made on behalf of the petitioners that the present application may also be disposed of in the same terms permitting the petitioner to approach the respondent Collector for ventilation of their grievance which should be considered in the light of observations made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Kameshwar Choudhary and Ors (supra). Learned counsel for the State in view of these submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, does not object to disposal of this application in that terms. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of permitting the petitioners to approach the respondent Collector, Darbhanga and demonstrate before him by filing petition detailing the lands purchased by them from the original land holder which according to them were clubbed in the Land Ceiling Case No. 31/1974-75 initiated against the original land holder and declared surplus. Let the petitioners, therefore, approach the respondent Collector within a period of five weeks from today along with a copy of the present order. Once such application is filed, respondent Collector shall consider the same and, if necessary, inquire into the matter in terms of the observations/directions contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the case of Kameshwar Choudhary (supra) and dispose of in - 5 - accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed of. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)