IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.10206 OF 2002 1. DEO NARAIN CHOUDHARY 2. SHIV NARAIN CHOUDHARY 3. RAM NATH CHOUDHARY 4. FULESHWAR CHOUDHARY ALL SONS OF LATE THITHAR LAL CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GANPATGANJ, DHARAHARA, POLICE STATION RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL ………………………………………………………………..PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, SUPAUL 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SUPAUL 4. THE D.C.L.R., SUPAUL 5. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, KISANPUR 6. UPENDRA CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE MOHANLAL CHOUDHARY 7. MAHENDRA CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE MOHANLAL CHOUDHARY 8. YOGINDRA CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE MOHANLAL CHOUDHARY 6 TO 8 ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIRIPUR SUKHASAN, POLICE STATION KISANPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL 9. DEVEAN SINGH, SON OF SASTU SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE FAKIRNA, POLICE STATION KARJAIN, DISTRICT SUPAUL …………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ********** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. KAMAL NAYAN CHAUBEY, S. ADV. MR. AMBUJ NAYAN CHAUBEY, ADV. MR. SIDDHARTH HARSH, ADV. FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. ARUN KUMAR PANDEY, JC TO SC II (C) ************** 6 09/07/2009 The only question to be decided in this case is whether a Land Ceiling Proceeding which has once been dropped can be reopened on the orders of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. The Land Ceiling Case No 35 of 1973-74 was instituted against Mohal Lal Choudhary which was dropped on 23.03.1976. After a gap of several years, the 2 proceedings was reopened by the impugned order dated 12.10.2001 on the ground that the original land holder had sold some of the lands on 26.12.1971 and 20.01.1977 which was beyond the cutoff date as provided under the Land Ceiling Act. The petitioners who are the purchasers were noticed and they appeared and filed show cause praying therein that his vendor i.e. Mohal Lal Choudhary or his heirs should be added as parties to the proceedings. However, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector proceeded on the basis of the materials before him and ultimately cancelled the sale deeds and held that the petitioners would have no claim over the land in question and further ordered that the proceeding should continue in accordance with law. The provisions for reopening a ceiling proceeding is enunciated in Section 45 (B) of the Land Ceiling Act, which reads as follows:- “The State Government may any time call for and examine any record of any proceeding disposed of by the Collector under the Act and may, if he thinks fit, ask the case to be reopened and dispose afresh in accordance with the provisions of the law”. From the perusal of the provision of Section 45 3 (B) of the Act, it is clear that the power to reopen a case is vested in the Collector of the District under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. In any event, the section itself is quite clear inasmuch as the power has been given for reopening a case to the Collector/State Government as the case may be, and it cannot be delegated to any other authority. In the present case, another question which is raised is that the vendor i.e. the land holder would also have to be given an opportunity to be heard and notice ought to have been issued by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector to the land holder. Learned Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the reasons for reopening the proceeding are justified, in view of the fact that it is admitted by the petitioners that the lands have been sold by the land holder after the cut off date as mentioned in Section 5 of the Act. This Court in principle agrees with the State Counsel inasmuch as the Act provides that 09.09.1970 would be the cut off date for the purpose of considering whether the sale deed executed is for the purposes of circumventing the provisions of the Act. There is also no doubt about the proposition that the Collector under 4 section 45 (B) of the Act has power to reopen any ceiling case. However, the power granted under the Act should be exercised by the authority as defined under the Act. Therefore, this Court finds that the order impugned is without jurisdiction and is accordingly set aside with leave to the State Government/the Collector to proceed in accordance with Section 45 (B) of the Act. This writ application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )