IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.686 of 2011 NAND KISHORE PANDEY S/O LATE RAMDIN PANDEY R/O VILL. ARORA, P.S. UDWANT NAGAR, DIST. BHOJPUR AT ARRAH --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORM AT BHOJPUR 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, UDWANT NAGAR, DIST. BHOJPUR 5. BRAJ KISHORE PANDEY, SON OF LATE RAMDIN PANDEY R/O VILL. ARORA, P.S. UDWANT NAGAR, DIST. BHOJPUR AT ARRAH. --- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Manu Shankar Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Kumari Amrita, Government Pleader no. 10 ----------- 02 20.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by that part of order dated 20.02.2009 (Annexure 14), passed by the respondent Collector in Land Ceiling Appeal no. 10 of 1989-90/ 28 of 1990-91 and 48 of 2006-07 (Nand Kishore Pandey vs. State), whereby he has been directed to produce his brother namely, Braj Kishore Pandey (respondent no.5 herein) for ossification/radiological tests in order to ascertain his age on the appointed day ( 09.09.1970). A ceiling proceeding was initiated against the father of the petitioner, namely Ramdin Pandey, in which he was shown to have possessed 47.85 acres of Class -1 lands. He was found entitled to only 02 units. Accordingly 30 acres of Class-1 lands were allowed to be retained and 17.85 acres were shown surplus in the hands of the landholder. A writ petition was filed 2 by the petitioner which was disposed of on 07.08.1990, directing him to file appeal before the Authority against the said order whereby the landholder was allowed to retain 02 units and thus to retain 30 acres of Class-1 lands only. Accordingly, the landholder filed appeal(s) being Ceiling appeal nos. 10 of 89-90 and 06 of 1990-91. The appellate authority by order dated 26.11.91, dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved thereby the landholder preferred revision before the Board of Revenue claiming extra unit for another son of Ramdin Pandey (brother of the writ petitioner). Learned Board of Revenue, on a consideration of the materials on record, remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority with a direction for carrying out ossification test of the brother of the petitioner, namely, Braj Kishore Pandey. It appears that the authority to whom the matter was remanded directed for appearance of aforesaid Braj Kishore Pandey (respondent no.5) for ossification test after deposit of the fee therefor. Aforesaid Braj Kishore Pandey did not appear for ossification test. Accordingly the Appellate Court rejected the claim of extra unit for aforesaid Braj Kishore Pandey. It appears that in the meanwhile one writ petition was preferred before this Court by the present writ petitioner being CWJC no. 4461 of 1997 (Nand Kishore Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors.). A Bench of this Court having noticed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner disposed of the matter with a direction upon the learned respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, to finally decide the matter at the earliest. Relevant 3 portion of the said order placed at Annexure-7 are as follows:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards the fact that there was specific direction to the appellate authority to conduct ossification and other relevant test to ascertain the age of respondent no.10 but the order of the appellate authority goes to show that the said test has not been done. In the facts of the case, I direct the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, to finally decide the matter at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from today.” It appears that in the light of said order the respondent Additional Member, Board of Revenue, disposed of the matter directing the Appellate authority to carry out ossification test. It appears that petitioner again moved this Court in CWJC no. 2038 of 1999 ( Nand Kishore Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar & ors.), seeking quashment of entire ceiling proceeding. The said matter was disposed of by a proceeding dated 06.09.1999(Annexure-8). The petitioner again preferred an application which was treated as Civil Review no. 169 of 2000. The said proceeding was disposed of by order dated 2.1.2001 (Annexure-10). Relevant portion of the order, which is relevant for the purpose of the present writ petition, are quoted hereinbelow “The grievance of the petitioners is that earlier matriculation certificate was produced in which no date of birth was mentioned. Now pursuant to the order of this Court fresh matriculation certificate has been issued and date of birth has been mentioned as 18.1.1952. Therefore, brother of the petitioners, namely, Braj Kishore Pandey is entitled to a unit. This Court cannot pass any order with regard to grant of one unit to Braj Kishore Pandey, because of the fact that genuineness of certificate is yet to be tested by the authorities concerned.” 4 It is seen from the order that the matter was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file application annexing matriculation certificate before the Collector and the respondent Collector was directed to make enquiries relating thereto. It is admitted position from the materials on record that the Matriculation certificate first produced by the petitioner did not bear any date of birth. It is further seen from order of this Court passed on CWJC no. 2038 of 1999 (Annexure-8), that the tabulation register produced before the said Court also did not bear his date of birth In the light of the direction of this Court the matter was again taken up by respondent Collector. Respondent Collector in the attending facts of the case has come to the conclusion that reliance on the subsequent matriculation certificate produced by the petitioner mentioning his date of birth as 18.01.1952 cannot be a conclusive proof of his age/date of birth. Respondent Collector has assigned adequate reasons therefor. It is further seen that at the interlocutory stage petitioner had filed a writ before this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 4461 of 1997, wherein reliance was placed on the earlier direction issued by the Authority under the Act to conduct ossification test which was not done. Thus, it is seen that at the interlocutory stage of the proceeding the petitioner had placed reliance on the aforesaid direction of the Authority under the Act to conduct ossification test and got the matter disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not 5 convinced that any illegality as such has been committed by the respondent Collector in directing the writ petitioner to get his brother ( respondent no.5) medically examined by conducting radiological/ossification test. This Court, therefore, does not find any merit in this writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)