IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.13302 OF 2003 SMT.SUMITRA DEVI, WIFE OF RAJENDRA PRASAD SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASATPUR, POLICE STATION GHORASAHAN, AT PRESENT KUNDWA CHAINPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI …………...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, GHORASAHAN, POLICE STATION GHORASAHAN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 5. BAMDEO SINGH, SON OF LAKSHMI NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARATHA, POLICE STATION AND ANCHAL DHAKA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 6. SHIV DHYAN MAHTO, SON OF DEORAJ MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASATPUR, POLICE STATION GHORASAHAN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. AT APRESENT KUNDWA CHAINPUR, EAST CHAMPARAN 7. DHENUK PASWAN, SON OF KISHUN PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASATPUR, POLICE STATION GHORASAHAN, AT PRESENT KUNDWA CHAINPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN ……………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC NO.12606 OF 2003 1. LALCHAN RAM, SON OF LATE BAUDH RAM 2. RAM ASHISH RAM, SON OF RAM PRATAP RAM 3. VIJAY RAM, SON OF LATE SHOBHAN RAM 4. MOST. SURATIYA, WIDOW OF LATE SHOBHAN RAM ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASATPUR, POLICE STATION GHORASAHAN. AT PRESENT KUNDWA CHAINPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ………………………………………………………………………….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER –CUM- SECRETARY, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, GHORASAHAN, POLICE STATION GHORASAHAN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 5. BAMDEO SINGH, SON OF LAKSHMI NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARATHA, POLICE STATION AND ANCHAL DHAKA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN 6. RAJENDRA BAITHA, SON OF BHADAI BAITHA 7. HORI PASWAN, SON OF RAM SHARAN PASWAN 8. GAURI PASWAN, SON OF MANGAL PASWAN 9. KARKACH PASWAN, SON OF ARJUN PASWAN 10. REKHA PASWAN, SON OF BASANT PASWAN 6 TO 10 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASATPUR, POLICE STATION GHORASAHAN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARANT, MOTIHARI ……………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********** 2 FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. YOGENDRA PRASAD SINHA I, ADVOCATE MR. NIRMAL KUMAR SINHA III, ADVOCATE MR. ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. H. P. SINGH, S.C. (CEILING) 1 ************** 10 20/09/2010 Respondent no. 5, Bamdeo Singh who is the land holder, died during the pendency of the writ applications. In CWJC No. 1024 of 2005, the sons of the land holder have been substituted. Since, there is no clash of interests between the heirs of respondent no. 5 and the petitioners, this Court exempts the petitioners from filing substitution petition. A stand has been taken on behalf of the heirs of respondent no. 5 that they have no objection in the matter. The writ application being CWJC No. 11448 of 2002 filed by respondent no. 5, was heard along with CWJC Nos. 12606 and 13302 of 2003, however, a separate order has been passed in CWJC No. 11448 of 2002. These matters arise out of a land ceiling proceedings initiated against one Bamdeo Singh, numbered as 2 of 1992-93. It would be relevant to give the genealogical table, which is as follows. Gunjeshwari Kunwar | --------------------------------------------------------------- | | | Ram Dulari Girja Devi Balkeshi Devi = Suraj Pd. Singh Rameshwar Singh | | Gopalji Singh ----------------------------------------------- | | Laxmi Narayan Singh Ram Baran Singh 3 | Bamdeo Singh The petitioners are the purchasers from Gopalji Singh and Laxmi Narayan Singh before the cut off date i.e. 22.10.1959. The lands in dispute appertains to Khata No. 28, Plot No. 398 measuring 40 decimals, Plot No. 208 measuring 26 decimals, Plot No. 209 measuring 26 decimals, Plot No. 210 measuring 43 decimals, situate in village Basatpur, Police Station Ghorasahan, district East Champaran. The facts are that Gopalji Singh had executed a sale deed in favour of one Baudh Mahara on 28.06.1956. By the Aforesaid sale deed, 26 decimals of Plot No. 208, 26 decimals of Plot No. 209 and 43 decimals of Plot No. 210 were transferred in favour of Baudh Mahara. The petitioners of 13636 of 2003 are heirs of Baudh Mahara. These lands have been clubbed with the lands of Bamdeo Singh, although he did not have anything to do with the said lands. On 02.09.1958, Laxmi Narayan Singh, father of Bamdeo Singh sold the entire lands of Khata No. 28, Plot No. 398 to Lakhichand Sah. Lakhichand Sah transferred the lands in favour of Tapesh Hazra on 31.05.1973 (Annexure 2/1) with respect to Plot No. 398, measuring 18 decimals. On 15.01.1999, Tapesh Hazra sold 18 4 decimals of land of Plot No. 398 to the petitioners. Later, Gautam Sah , son of Lakhichand Sah sold the remaining lands to one Sumitra Devi. Sumitra Devi is the writ petitioner of CWJC No. 13302 of 2003. The claim of the petitioner is that all these lands have been sold before the cut off date i.e. 22.10.1959 and as such, they ought to have been exempted from the ceiling proceedings. It is submitted that as far as the sale with respect to the Plot No. 398 is concerned, it has to be considered from the first sale deed, which was executed on 02.09.1958. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had not come to know about the initiation of the ceiling proceedings or for that matter, the orders passed in Ceiling Case No. 02 of 1992-93 until steps were taken to distribute the lands. It is also submitted that the petitioners have their house over the said lands. At paragraph 11, the petitioner has given details with respect to the purchas issued to respondents 6 to 10 who have been made parties, but have chosen not to appear in this writ application. During the pendency of these writ applications, the order of status quo was passed with respect to the possession, over the lands in question on 12.04.2004. Counsel for the petitioners submits that as of today, they are in possession over the said lands. 5 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State (Ceiling) submits that in fact Bamdeo Singh had not filed returns regarding the fact that the lands in question had been sold by him or his father to the petitioners. I may point out here that Bamdeo Singh had also challenged the Land Ceiling Case No. 02 of 1992-93 by fling CWJC NO. 1024 of 2005. Specially referring the Annexure-6, it would be apparent that in fact Bamdeo Singh had shown that he had sold the lands in favour of several parties including Gautam Sah. In any event, even if the landholder does not file objection, disclosing that he had sold the lands which are subject matter of these two writ applications, the land holder would not be a looser as he would always have the liberty to file an option declaring that the lands in question should be treated as his surplus lands. The law is well settled with respect to sale of lands, which are subject matter of ceiling proceedings. Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961 reads as follows:- “5 (1) (iii) – Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or authority the Collector shall have power to, make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land by a land holder whether by a registered instrument or 6 otherwise made after the 22nd day of October, 1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made with the object of defeating, or in contravention of the provisions of this Act or for retaining benami or farzi land in excess of the ceiling area, the Collector may after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard, annul such transfer and thereupon the land shall be deemed to be held by the transferor for the purposes of determining the ceiling area, he may hold under this Section.” In view of the provisions of Section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act, the Additional Collector, East Champaran at Motihari ought to have exempted the lands which were sold prior to the cut off date i.e. 22.10.1959. Since, this Court has remanded the case of the landholder Bamdeo Singh (now deceased), CWJC No. 11448 of 2002, to the Additional Collector, East Champaran at Motihari for consideration on this aspect of the matter, the petitioners would be at liberty to appear before the Additional Collector along with a copy of this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. These writ applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )