IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6118 of 2010 1. RAM LAKSHAN RAUT S/O LATE RAJA RAUT R/O VILL PAROHA, P.S.DUMRA, DISTT-SITAMARHI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE & LAND REFORMS GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI 3. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SITAMARHI 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS SITAMARHI 5. CIRCLE OFFICER DUMRA, SITAMARHI 6. GAFFAR NADAFF S/O FARMAN NADAF R/O VILL PAROHA, P.S.DUMRA, DISTT- SITAMARHI 7. BALDEV PASWAN S/O LATE GANESHI PASWAN R/O VILL PAROHA, P.S.DUMRA,DISTT-SITAMARHI 8. PHULEGAN PASWAN S/O GANESHI PASWAN R/O VILL PAROHA, P.S.DUMRA, DISTT-SITAMARHI 9. MOHAN RAM S/O SONAFI RAM R/O VILL PAROHA,P.S.DUMRA, DISTT-SITAMARHI 10. RAM EKBAL RAM S/O LATE SUKHDEV RAM R/O VILL PAROHA, P.S. DUMRA, DISTT-SITAMARHI ----------- 04. 29.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay, S.C.-3 (Ceiling) for the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue & Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna in Misc. Case No. 01/2008, Annexure-5 whereunder his request to reopen Ceiling Case No. 1/73- 74 initiated against Ram Sewak Singh has been rejected on the ground that petitioner being purchaser of the lands detailed in Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the writ application through sale-deeds dated 8.5.1974, 3.7.1974 and 31.7.1973 after the cut off date i.e. 9.9.1970 the sale deeds being void ab initio as executed without permission of the ceiling authorities the case is not required to be reopened to annul the sale-deeds as the sale-deeds are violative of Section 5 (1)(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of - 2 - Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid order has been passed by the Hon’ble Minister without appreciating the fact that petitioners had purchased the lands detailed in paragraph 4 under two sale-deeds dated 8.5.1974 and 3.7.1974 from Ram Charitra Singh against whom no ceiling case was ever initiated, as such, the vendor Ram Charitra Singh had no occasion to apply for and obtain permission in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act and thus, the lands could not have been acquired in the ceiling case initiated against the father of Ram Sakal Singh. In this connection, it is also pointed out that Ram Charitra Singh is the Khatiyani raiyat of the lands detailed in paragraph 4 of the writ petition. The Khatiyan is contained in Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit filed today. 4. As regards the lands detailed in paragraph 5 it is submitted that those lands were purchased by the mother of the petitioner from Ram Sakal Singh under sale-deeds dated 31.7.1973. In this connection it is pointed out that a ceiling case was initiated against Ram Sewak Singh the father of Ram Sakal Singh but the two plots which were purchased by the mother of the petitioner from Ram Sakal Singh were not included in the ceiling case initiated against the father of Ram Sakal Singh, namely, Sri Ram Sewak Singh. Statement in this regard has been made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit. 5. It appears without appreciating the aforesaid contention - 3 - that Ram Charitra Singh is the Khatiyani raiyat of the lands detailed in paragraph 4 and there was no ceiling case initiated against him and further that the two plots detailed in paragraph 5 were not included in the ceiling case initiated against Ram Sewak Singh the father of Ram Sakal Singh who sold those plots in favour of the mother of the petitioner under sale-deed dated 31.7.1973 the Hon’ble Minister has rejected the prayer of the petitioner to reopen the case. It is, thus, evident that the Hon’ble Minister has not applied his judicial mind to the relevant facts which is necessary to adjudicate the validity of the acquisition of the lands in-question in connection with the ceiling proceeding initiated against Ram Sewak Singh. Accordingly, I set aside the order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Hon’ble Minister in Misc. Case No. 1/08, Annexure-5 and request the Hon’ble Minister to reconsider the matter in accordance with law in the light of the Khatiyan entries and the records of the ceiling case initiated against Ram Sewak Singh. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha, J.)