IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1162 of 2001 AKHAURI VINIT KUMAR & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the petitioners :Mr. Mangla Roy, Advocate For the State :Mr. O.P. Upadhyay, S.C.2 (Ceiling) 10/ 08.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. None appears for the Respondent nos. 6 to 16, although they have been served. 2. Petitioners are land- holders. They are aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.1999, Anneure-7, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sherghati in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1997-98, whereunder their request to cancel parcha of the lands in question issued in favour of private Respondent nos. 6 to 16 has been rejected in the light of the instructions of the Collector of the District contained in letter no. 1655 dated 21.7.1999, directing the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sherghati not to proceed in the matter until Revisional Survey Khatiyan is suitably corrected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that during the Cadestral Survey operation, the lands in question were recorded in favour of grandfather of petitioner no.1 and great-grandfather of petitioners 2 and 3 and such Cadestral Survey Khatiyan is contained in Aannexure-1 to this application. After vesting of the Jamindari, returns were filed and petitioners were shown in possession of the lands in question, which is evident from the return filed in connection with Tauzi No. 8491, vide Return Case No. 31261 of 1954-55, which - 2 - is contained in Annexure-2 to this application. It is further submitted that in view of the entries made in the Cadestral Survey Khatiyan as also the return filed by the erstwhile landlord the rent of the lands in question were taken from the petitioners and in lieu thereof rent receipts were obtained by them right from the date of vesting of Jamindari until the year 1994-95. As the petitioners remained in cultivating possession of the lands in question throughout, a ceiling proceeding under the Bihar Lands Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was also initiated against them in which the draft statement was made showing the petitioners as the land-holders of the lands in question. They filed their objection and after considering the fact that the petitioners did not have any surplus land, the proceeding was closed under orders dated 1.6.1976, passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 821/10 of 1973-74, as contained in Annexure-4 to this application. Ignoring the aforesaid records, the lands in question were settled in favour of private Respondents on the basis of the entries made in the Revisional Survey recording the lands in question in the name of the State of Bihar. Petitioners thereafter filed application dated 16.9.1996, Annexure-5 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sherghati asserting that the Revisional Survey entries were without any basis and should be ignored as petitioners were not even permitted to take their objection before the survey authorities as the survey proceeding was closed after issue of notification under Section 3 of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act (hereinafter referred to as the - 3 - Act) and the consolidation proceedings is also not making any progress as the same has been adjourned sine die, which information they have received from the office of the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna. In this background, it has been submitted that the direction of the Collector of the District not to proceed with the Misc. Case No. 2 of 1997-98 until corrections are made in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan is wholly without jurisdiction as petitioners have been relegated to such a pass where they have no remedy at all since neither the survey proceeding was allowed to be taken to its logical conclusion nor consolidation proceeding is making any headway and after issue of the notification under Section 3 of the Act, petitioners are even prevented from approaching the Civil Court and, therefore, this Court should not only quash the order dated 4.8.1999, passed in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1997-98, but thereafter should direct the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sherghati to ignore the instruction of the Collector contained in letter no. 1655 dated 21.7.1999 and to proceed in accordance with law and secure the possession of the petitioners over the lands in question. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners. He states that until the Revisional Survey Khatiyan is corrected, petitioners cannot be put in possession of the lands in question. 5. I regret to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the State. If the Revisional Survey entries have been made ignoring the earlier entries as also the revenue records generated - 4 - thereafter then such entries are required to be ignored as Revisional survey proceedings were not taken to its logical end on account of issue of notification under Section 3 of the Act and consolidation proceeding is also not making any headway for the reasons best known to the consolidation authorities. 6. In the circumstances, I not only quash the order dated 4.8.1999, passed in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1997-98, but also direct the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sherghati to proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders taking into account the submissions in the application dated 16.9.1996, Annexure-5 ignoring the instructions of the Collector of the District contained in letter no. 1655 dated 21.7.1999 and for such purpose I direct the petitioners to appear before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sherghati on 29.9.2008. 7. This application is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)