IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3532 of 2004 1. ASHARFI KUAR , WIFE OF LATE RAMADHAR SINGH 2. RAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMADHAR SINGH BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ATRAWANA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT BUXAR. ------ PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, BUXAR AT BUXAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAND REFORMS, BUXAR 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, BUXAR, DISTRICT BUXAR ------- RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :- Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, Adv. For the State :- Ms. Kumari Amrita, S.C. I (C) Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, A.C to S.C. I (C) ----------- 5 13.9.2010 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 17.9.2003 by which the Member, Board of Revenue has directed that there should be a fresh enquiry with respect to the classification of the petitioners’ lands. The matter was reopened under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. Several points have been raised by the petitioners, but the main point which has been argued in this case is that the lands in question would not come within class II category of lands rather they would come under class III category of lands by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he fears that the finding of the Collector, Buxar holding that the lands of the petitioners fall within the Sone Command Area would prejudice his case and would influence the enquiry, inasmuch it has been stated by the Collector that lands which fall within the Sone Command Area are fertile lands and would come within the category of class II lands. I may clarify this aspect of the matter by referring to the earlier enquiry report which is contained in Annexure-4 dated 19.2.1999. According to the earlier enquiry report, it appears that the village where the lands are situated fall at the tail end of the Sone Command Area and in fact do not have irrigation facilities. It is also apparent from the enquiry report that the tube well has been installed on the petitioners’ lands. The dispute lies in the fact that the petitioners’ claim that the tube well was installed in 1974 whereas the enquiry report states that the tube well was installed in the year 1968-69. The said finding in the enquiry report is ex-parte 3 finding based on the statements given by villagers. The name of the villagers who have made statements before the enquiry officer has not been recorded in the enquiry report. This Court finds that such a finding cannot be relied upon as it does not even note down the name of the persons who have been examined by the enquiry officer, leave alone the requirement of recording their statement in the presence of the petitioners. Therefore, this Court confirms the operative part of the order of the Member, Board of Revenue and directs that the petitioners should be given notice of the enquiry and specific statement should be recorded with respect to whether the tube well was installed before the cut off date i.e. 9.9.1970 or after the cut off date, as this would be a relevant factor for deciding the classification of the lands. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)