IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15747 of 2010 1. Om Prakash Bhagat Son of late Bhola Prasad Bhagat 2. Jai Prakash Bhagat son of late Bhola Prasad Bhagat Both R/o vill. Chandpur, P.S. Kadwa, Dist. Katihar ---- petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector, Katihar 3. The Additional Collector Land Ceiling at Katihar 4. The Anchal Adhikari at Kadwa within the district of Katihar 5. Smt. Urmila Devi D/o of late Daya Rani Bhagatain and Late Dukhi Ram Bhagat and w/o sri Yogendra Prasad Bhagat R/o vill. Chandpur, P.S. Kadwa, Dist. Katihar --- respondents. With CWJC No.14325 of 2010 1. Yugal Paswan son of late Chanchal Paswan 2. Jagdish Paswan son of late Rajendra Paswan 3. Dilip Manjhi son of late Kalu Manjhi 4. Tilai Mandal son of late Khirur Chand Mandal and grand son of Khikhru Mandal 5. Anuj Paswan @ Arjun paswan son of late Chanchal paswan 6. Most. Maini Tuddu widow of late Jetha Marandi. 7. Tallu Hembram son of late Musai Hembram 8. Subodh Rajak son of late Jamun Rajak No. 1 to 5 R/o vill. Khempur, No. 6 and 7 of village Rotai and No.8 of village Khempur Chandpur all within Kadwa P.S. of the Dist of Katihar --- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Collector of the District of Katihar 3. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling Katihar 4. The Anchal Adhikari at Kadwa within the Dist. Of Katihar 5. Smt. Urmila Devi W/o shri Yogendra Prasad Bhagat 6. Jai Prakash Bhagat son of late Bhola Nath Bhagat 7. Om Prakash Bhagat son of late Bhola Nath Bhagat. No. 5 to 7 R/o of vill. Chandpur, P.S. Kadwa, Dist. Katihar. --- Respondents. In C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010 For the petitioners : Mr. Ramanand Poddar,Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.C.Thakur, S.C.4 In C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 For the Petitioners : Mr. A.P.Ambastha,Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.C.Thakur, S.C.4. ----------- 04 09.12.2010 Both the writ applications arise out of the same land ceiling proceeding. They have thus been heard together and are 2 being disposed of by the present order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in both the writ applications and Mr. R.C.Thakur learned standing counsel no.4 (Ceiling). Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents in both the cases are filed and placed on record. Petitioners in C.W.J.C. no. 15747 of 2010 are the purchasers of 7.25 acres of land, situated in Mauza Khempur, Thana no. 251, within the Kadwa police Station in the District of Katihar, details whereof have been mentioned in para 5 of the writ petition, from the landlord namely, Daya Rani Bhagtain, substituted by her daughter (LR), namely, Urmila Devi, in the year 1962 by way of sale deeds, whereas petitioners of C.W.J.C. no. 14325 of 2010 are ‘purcha’ holders in respect of part of the land in question having been settled with them upon declaring those land surplus in the Ceiling proceeding initiated and concluded against aforesaid Daya Rani Bhagtain. Short facts leading to the writ petitions required to be noticed for proper appreciation of the case. C.W.J.C.No. 15747 Of 2010 Petitioners have challenged the legality of order dated 07.05.2010 (Annexure-5), passed by respondent no.2, Collector Katihar in Land Ceiling case no. 72 of 73-74 (State versus Daya Rani Bhagtain substituted by LR Smt. Urmila Devi). By the said order denotification of the land in question was not allowed on the ground that the same shall be done after resettling/re-issuance of purcha(s) in favour of the original settlees on the lands in question. 3 Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent Collector for de-notifying the lands purchased by the writ petitioners which has been found to be a valid transfer in terms of the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land )Act 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). It is the stand of the petitioners that a Land Ceiling case was initiated against Daya Rani Bhagtain (original land holder) and without making any enquiry in terms of the provision of the Act certain lands were declared surplus in the hands of the landholder including the lands in question. After concluding the proceeding a notification in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act was made on 16.01.1988 (Annexure-1), whereby besides other lands, the vended lands in favour of the writ petitioners were also declared surplus and stood acquired and transferred to the State. Having come to know about the aforesaid fact the petitioners preferred an application before the respondent Collector for re- opening of the land Ceiling proceeding under Section 45 B of the Act which gave rise to Misc. case no. 358 of 1988-89 (Jay Prakash Bhagat vs. State of Bihar). The Collector after having heard the parties re-opened the proceeding and thereafter got an enquiry made in terms of Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act through the original Court i.e. Additional Collector (Ceiling) Katihar. After having considered the entire matter respondent Collector by order dated 18.05.1993 (Annexure- 2) disposed of the said application holding as under:- (i) The case requires to be reopened. (ii) As per the report of the respondent Additional 4 Collector lands of the writ petitioners covered by sale deed executed in the year 1962 were required to be de-notified. (iii) Such de-notification is to be made within 02 months from the order but after ensuring that the settlees on the land (purcha holder) should be allotted another piece(s) of land. Upon persuasion of the writ petitioners, the Additional Collector ultimately submitted a proposal to the respondent Collector for de-notification along with a draft of the same whereafter respondent Collector by his order dated 07.05.2010 observed that such denotification is to be made only after ensuring settlement of another pieces(s) of land in favour of the settlees on the land in question. These facts shall reflect from Annexure-5 which has also been impugned. Since there was no such de- notification was made the petitioners filed the present writ case. C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 Eight petitioners have joined hands in filing the present writ application seeking issuance of appropriate writ/order to quash the notices dated 24.08.2009 contained in Annexure 3/A to 3/G series, whereby settlement of land made in their favour sometimes in the year 1988-89 by issuing purcha(s)/red card(s) were cancelled and the petitioners were directed to deposit the red cards before the Circle Officer, Kadwa . They also impugned the order dated 18.05.1993 passed by respondent Collector in Misc. case no. 358 of 88-89 (Annexure-2), whereby the Ceiling proceeding earlier 5 initiated and concluded against the original landholder Daya Rani Bhagatin (substituted by L.R. Urmila Devi) was re-opened and a direction for exclusion of 7.25 acres of land, part of which claimed to be in possession of the writ petitioners being the settlees in terms of Section 27 of the Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010 submits that once it has been found under the order of the Collector passed under Section 45B of the Act that the Ceiling proceeding is required to be re-opened and based on reports submitted by the respondent Additional Collector, the land claimed by the petitioners required to be de-notified, the authorities were bound to carry out the said order. For last 17 years the said order has not been given effect to. It is the contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid order dated 18.05.1993 was passed in presence of the State as well as the writ petitioners against which no appeal or writ was preferred and as such the same has attained finality. Learned counsel appearing in support of C.W.J.C.No.14325 of 2010, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners being the settlees ( purcha holders) acquired a valuable right and interest in the lands so settled with them. The respondent Collector while considering the application filed on behalf of the purchasers of land (petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010) ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to them by issuing notices upon them before passing the order impugned. He relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court since report in 2008(1)PLJR 215 SC (Para 6 12) in the case of (Dadan Ram & Ors. Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.). It is next submitted that the respondent Collector has passed a composite order whereby not only the proceeding has been reopened but the land alienated/sold in favour of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. no. 15747 of 2010 was found valid and directed to be excluded from the Ceiling proceeding by issuance of a fresh notification under Section 15(1) of the Act. It is contended that as a sequel to the aforesaid order the Anchal Adhikari has issued impugned notices (Annexure-3/A to 3/G series), whereby they have been noticed that the purcha(s)/red card(s) issued in their favour stood cancelled. It is the contention of the petitioners that even before issuance of aforesaid notices, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the writ petitioners. He relies on the pleadings in paragraph nos. 12 and 18 of the writ petition. It is further submitted that those pleadings have not been controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit filed in the present case. Learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the order dated 18.05.1993 was passed after having noticed the fact that the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. no. 15747 of 2010 were bonafide purchasers of a piece of lands in the year 1962 itself from the original landholders and admittedly they were not given any opportunity during the hearing made in the Land Ceiling proceeding. It is stated that the respondent authorities are taking steps to comply with the aforesaid order and for which steps have already been taken. It is stated that the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. no. 15747 of 2010 are already in possession of the land and the 7 ‘Jamabandi’ has been recorded in their favour and it is only a paper work which is required to be done. It is the stand of the State that appropriate steps are being taken to identify suitable piece(s) of land for resettling the purcha holders ( petitioners of C.W.J.C. no. 14325 of 2010) and thereafter notification in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act de-notifying the land covered by the sale deed effected in favour of writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010 shall be issued. There are few admitted positions. Writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010 are purchasers through registered sale deed(s) in the year 1962 from the original land holder. Revenue records indicate their title and possession. The stand of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 is that the purcha holders were at least required to be heard by Additional Collector after re- opening of the proceeding before passing any order in respect of the land in question.. It is the stand of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 that they are still in possession of the land so settled with them. It further appears from the pleadings that admittedly notices were not given to the purcha holders before passing the impugned order by the said respondent while reopening the proceeding and by the respondent Anchal Adhikari before cancellation of purcha issued in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 has taken a fair stand before this Court that he would not be objecting to the re-opening of proceeding by order dated 18.05.1993, passed by respondent Collector in Misc. case no. 358 of 88-89, thereafter the matter ought 8 to have been assigned to the Additional Collector for proceeding afresh to consider the grievance of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010. It is submitted that while making such consideration, the Additional Collector was required to give notice to the petitioners and thereafter decide the matter. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. Admittedly notices were not given to the purcha holders (writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010) before re-opening of the proceeding and allowing the lands claimed by the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010 to be excluded from the Ceiling proceeding. It is further apparent that notices were not given to the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010, before cancelling purcha(s) and communicating the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 by Annexure 3/A to 3/G series. Purcha holders acquired interest in the land after having been settled with them in terms of Section 27 of the Act. Justice requires and the case law cited on behalf of the petitioners of two cases mandate that notices are required to be issued to the purcha holders before proceeding further in a concluded matter. On the other hand, the case of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010 cannot be thrown to winds by this Court in view of the fact that they claim to be bonafide purchasers of land from the original land holder way back in the year 1962. Learned counsel appearing in support of C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 has taken a fair stand before this Court that so far as re-opening of the Land Ceiling proceeding is 9 concerned, the purcha holder may not objected to that but they should thereafter be associated with enquiry to be made thereafter by the appropriate authority while making consideration with regard to the aforesaid sale effected in favour of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010 so that they may bring to the notice of the authority relevant aspects of the case worth consideration while considering the case afresh after re-opening. Admittedly the impugned notices Annexure 3/A to 3/G series were issued informing cancellation of the red card issued in favour of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 without issuing notice. This Court is hamstrung in considering as to whether an enquiry as contemplated under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act was made as per the provision of the Act before making recommendation in favour of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010. Relevant pleadings in this regard are not on record. In these fact situation, this Court is satisfied that the following order be passed in the present case: (i) The impugned order dated 18-05-93 passed by respondent Collector in Misc. case no. 358 of 1988-89 (Annexure- 2) to the C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010, so far it relates to re-opening of the Ceiling proceeding in terms of Section 45 B of the Act is not required to be interfered with and is accordingly not interfered with. The matter after re-opening go back to the respondent Additional Collector for making consideration in terms of the provision of the Act in respect of the claim of the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 15747 of 2010.While making such consideration the Additional 10 Collector shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. no. 14325 of 2010. (ii) The impugned notices contained in Annexure 3/A to 3/G series of C.W.J.C.No. 14325 of 2010 are quashed and set aside. (iii) Both the parties of writ petitions shall appear before the respondent Additional Collector annexing therewith copy of the present order within a period of 05 weeks from today. (iv) Respondent Additional Collector shall dispose of the matter finally inclusive of de-notification of the land in question, if so required, within a period of 06 months from the date of appearance of the parties before him in terms of the present order. Both the applications stand disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)