IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13524 of 2004 HARISH CHANDRA JHA S/O LATE ANANT JHA, R/O VILLAGE-UCHHATI, P.S. BIRAUL, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. …………Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA, P.S. DARBHANGA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND CEILING, DARBHANGA, P.S. DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR I/C ESTABLISHMENT, DARBHANGA, P.S.-DARBHANGA, DISTRICT-DARBHANGA. ……….Respondents. ----------- 04 28.01.2011 Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner assails the notification issued on 22.06.2004 under Section 15 (1) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), in respect of Land Ceiling Case No. 234/75-76, initiated against Kumar Subheshwar Singh son of late Bisheshwar Singh. By the said notification, 862.27 acres of land were declared surplus in the hands of the landholder(s) including the lands in question appertaining to old Khata No. 2854 and New Survey Plot No. 3009 measuring an area of 8 Kathas, 12 and 1/2 Dhurs situated in Mauza-Uchhati, in the District of Darbhanga. 3. According to the writ petitioner, the aforesaid land belonged to Darbhanga Maharaj. On 22.02.44, 1 Bigha, 5 Kathas and 8 Dhurs of land appertaining to Old Survey Plot 2 No. 2854 was settled with one Jamadar Darji. The said document is, however, not on record. On 11.01.1945, a Parwana in respect of the aforesaid land settled by the landholder was issued. This document is also not on record. On 12.05.1950, aforesaid Jamadar Darji executed a deed of gift (by Mokasa) in favour of his wife Kapuran Devi. It is the case of the writ petitioners that on 02.05.1952 (Annexure-1) a registered sale deed was executed in favour of Anant Jha and Sri Krishna Jha, father and uncle respectively of the writ petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 30.08.1957 by reason of 02 sale deeds executed by aforesaid Kapuran Devi, the rest of the lands appertaining to Old Khata No. 2854 was/were purchased by father of the writ petitioner but in the name of his brother-in-law. In the year 1975, a land ceiling case bearing L.C. No. 235/75-76, was initiated against Kumar Subheshwar Singh, in which the aforesaid land was also clubbed and after adjudication made therein, the same was/were declared surplus in the hands of the landholder(s) leading to issuance of impugned notification under Section 15 (1) of the Act (Annexure-7) on 22.06.2004. 4. The case of the petitioner is that after purchase of the land(s) they got their names mutated in the Register II 3 of the revenue records and was paying rent regularly. Suddenly, he came to know that the aforesaid land was declared surplus in the hands of the landholder(s) leading to filing of the present case. It is also the petitioner’s case that in family arrangement arrived at between the co-sharers the land appertaining to New Survey Plot No. 3009 (carved out from Old Plot No. 2854) fell in the share of writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that land in question was/were alienated by the landholder in the year 1945 itself whereafter the aforesaid land was conveyed under different registered instruments and ultimately the father of the petitioner purchased the same whereafter name(s) of the purchaser was mutated in the records of right and the inclusion of the lands claimed by the writ petitioner appertaining to New Plot No. 3009 (carved out from Old Khata No. 2854) was bad in law. It is the stand of the petitioner that out of Old Survey Plot No. 2854 New Survey No. 3012 was also carved out which still stood recorded in the name of brother of the petitioner, namely, Dev Chandra Jha. 5. No counter affidavit on behalf of the State has been filed. 4 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. This Court feels hamstrung in considering the claim of the petitioner, in view of the fact that neither the settlement document allegedly executed on 02.02.1944 in favour of Jamadar Darji has been brought on record nor the Parwana issued in favour of the said Jamadar Darji on 11.01.1945 has been annexed to the writ petition. In absence of these two documents the petitioner could have filed the Jamabandi return submitted by the ex-landlord at the time of vesting which is also not on record. The submission of the petitioner is that New Survey Plot No. 3012 carved out from Old Survey Plot No. 2854 is not the plot/land included in notification issued under Section 15 (1) of the Act (Annexure-7) cannot be demonstrated before this Court, in view of the pleadings and annexures placed on record. The submission of the petitioner that he is rightful owner of the land and was not given opportunity to place his case before the land ceiling authority can, therefore, be raised by invoking jurisdiction of the authority under Section 45 (B) of the Act for reopening the concluded land ceiling proceeding. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court observes 5 that if the case of the petitioner is that the lands belonging to them have been illegally included in the land ceiling proceeding No. 234/75-76 initiated against landholder namely, Kumar Subheshwar Singh and declared surplus without making appropriate adjudication on his claim in terms of the provisions of the Act, the course open to the petitioner is to invoke jurisdiction under Section 45 (B) of the Act for reopening of the proceeding. If any such application is preferred before the competent authority, it is expected the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. Safik (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)