IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7002 of 2003 ANIL RAM son of late Jagdish Ram, resident of Beldour, Police Station Beldour, District Khagaria… …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, through the Collector,Khagaria, 2. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gogari, Khagaria, 3. The Sub-divisional Officer, Khagaria, 4. The Circle Officer, Beldour, District Khagaria, 5. Rambadan Paswan, son of Janki Paswan, resident of village Chikni, Panchayat Dumari Pansalwa, Police Station Beldour, District Khagaria……Respondents ----------- 4 12.08.2009 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, AC to SC 5 for the State and Mr. Dronacharya, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.05.2003 passed by the Collector, Khagaria as well as the earlier orders dated 09.07.1990 and 12.10.1990, passed by the DCLR, Khagaria and Circle Officer, Beldour, respectively. By order dated 20.05.2003, as contained in annexure 1, the Collector, Khagaria, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of the purcha granted in favour of respondent no. 5 by annexure 2 and for restoring back the lands in his favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land appertaining to Khata nos. 168 and 143, plot nos. 1479 and 1625, measuring one acre, was settled in favour 2 of one Jagdish Ram under section 27 of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter to be referred to as “Act”), as the same was acquired by the State Government in a ceiling proceeding. Subsequently, Jamabandi was created in favour of Jagdish Ram, who was regularly paying rent to the State of Bihar. The aforesaid Jagdish Ram died issueless in the year 1981 leaving behind his three brothers, namely, Sukhdeo Ram, Sahdeo Ram and Mahadeo Ram, and their sons including the petitioner in the family. However, since the wife of the aforesaid Jagdish Ram pre-deceased him and he was being looked after by the petitioner, and therefore, in the year 1978 itself the petitioner was adopted as a son by him, which was known to all. Learned counsel next submitted that in the year 1987-88, respondent no. 5, who lived in a different village about 16 km away from there, had got this Jamabandi cancelled and got the same created in his favour. However, it is claimed that the petitioner remained in possession of the land and when the respondent no. 5 tried to dispossess the petitioner, then the fact came to his knowledge that the land had again been settled in favour 3 of respondent no. 5 by issuing a purcha compelling the petitioner to file Miscellaneous Case No. 49/1991-92 before the Collector. It had also been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that it would be manifest from annexures 2 and 9/a, which are with regard to the proceeding of re-settlement of the land in favour of respondent no. 5, that the Anchaladhikari concerned had directed for local inspection/spot verification to ascertain as to whether the earlier purcha holder had a near relation or not and also as to whether the claimant is landless or not. In compliance of the aforesaid the Halka Karmachari had given a report stating therein that the Jamabandi raiyat died issueless and the claimant is landless. However, it was submitted that the Halka Karmachari did not report with regard to the factum as to whether there were other relations of the purcha holder in the family concerned. This had been shown to point out that the report was collusive. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Collector concerned had taken note of the fact in the order under challenge that the original purcha holder died leaving behind his brothers and nephews and in the Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara 4 Law, if a male Hindu dies in absence of Class I heirs, the property will devolve upon the Class II heirs or Class III heirs. Therefore, the contention is that even if it is assumed that the petitioner was not an adopted son, there will be no doubt that the property will devolve upon the heirs of the preferred Classes including the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 submitted in reply that the claim of the petitioner that he was adopted son of the erstwhile purcha holder stood defeated and falsified by the fact that in the voter list and identity card his real father Mahadeo Ram had been shown as his father, and not the aforesaid Jagdish Ram, who had allegedly adopted him. Thus, it had been stated that the claim of the petitioner that he was adopted son had rightly been rejected by the Collector concerned in the absence of any valid document showing adoption. It was further submitted that a certificate granted by the Mukhia of the concerned Gram Panchayat would not be a valid proof of the claim for adoption. However, learned counsel for respondent no. 5 could not controvert the fact that even if the petitioner was not the adopted son of the original purcha holder, who died issueless leaving certain heirs, the 5 settled property would devolve upon the remaining heirs This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Collector. However, in that case, the petitioner alone may not inherit the entire property but he may be one of the heirs. It is manifest from sub-section (3) of Section 27 of the Act that the settlement under this provision is inheritable, but not transferable. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 20.05.2003 passed by the Collector, Khagaria, as contained in annexure 1, cannot be sustained and as such, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector, Khagaria to consider the issue afresh after hearing the parties and taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and pass an order in accordance with law. It is also made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to other issues involved in this case except the issues, as discussed above. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)