IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5961 of 2009 BHUBNESHAWAR SAH @BHUBNESHWAR SAH, SON OF LATE BIPATA SAH @ BIPATT SAHU RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAJURI, P.S. BHARGAMA DISTRICT ARARIA----PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, ARARIA. 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORBESGANJ, DISTRICT ARARIA ---RESPONDENTS. ---------- 04. 10.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Upadhayay, S.C.-2(Ceiling) for the State of Bihar. 2. Petitioner, who is a small land holder is aggrieved by the order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the Collector, Araria whereunder appeal filed against the district gazette extraordinary No.1 dated 22.7.2003 published under Sub-Section(1) of Section 11 of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) contained in Annexure-1 has been rejected observing that the appeal has been filed after six years of the gazette publication. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid gazette has been published in connection with Ceiling Case No. 390 of 1976-77, which was initiated against ten persons, namely, M/s Devki Devi, Ram Krishna Sah, Shyam Narayan Sah, Rameshwar Sah, Jageshwar Sah, Bijay Kumar Sah, Sanjeev Kumar Sah, Binod Kumar Sah, Moti Devi and Boni Devi with whom petitioner had no concern, yet his lands bearing Plot Nos. 1368 and 1406 appertaining to Khata No. 238 of village Khajuri measuring an area of 2.66 and 1.40 acres has been included in the said gazette along with the lands of the aforesaid 10 land holders and such inclusion is wholly without jurisdiction as petitioner was not noticed in the said ceiling proceeding and he had no connection with the land holders - 2 - against whom the said proceeding has been initiated. In appreciation of the aforesaid fact the learned Collector, Araria ought to have entertained the appeal condoning the delay of about six years in filing the appeal. In this connection, it is further pointed out that petitioner was never noticed in the ceiling proceeding and he has no occasion to know that his lands have become the subject matter of the aforesaid ceiling proceeding, in the circumstances, as and when petitioner learnt about the inclusion of his land, he approached the Collector of the district by filing appeal and the learned Collector should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and made inquiry and after inquiry if the Collector was satisfied that the aforesaid lands are not connected with those against whom the said ceiling proceeding was initiated then he should have passed orders for excluding the land of the petitioner from the said proceeding. 4. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the Collector, Araria in the special facts of the case should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and should have made inquiry as to whether the aforesaid lands of Plot Nos. 1368 and 1406 belong to the petitioner or to the ten persons against whom the said Ceiling Case No.390 of 1976-77 was initiated. Let the Collector, Araria condone the delay in filing the appeal and proceed with the inquiry and pass appropriate orders as per the observations made above as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)