CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12568 of 1999 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 1. DHO DHO RAJAK, SON OF MAHENDRA RAJAK, RESIDENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DIHA, P.S. SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI 2. SMT. PARWATI DEVI, WIFE OF DHO DHO RAJAK 3. DURGA SUDA SON OF MANGAL SADA, BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DIHA, P.S. SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI.--------------------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDL. MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BEGUSARAI. 4. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DIST. BEGUSARAI. 5. SMT. RAMAPATI DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI RAM CHANDRA CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BISHOWA, P.O. NAYA NAGAR, P.S. TEGHRA, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 6. SHRI RAJ KISHORE CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAM BADAN CHOUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DEEHA, P.O. SADPUR, P.S. SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 7. SHRI RAM SANEHI SINGH SON OF LATE SADHU SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAIDPUR, P.O. SAIDPUR, P.S. SURYAGARHA, DISTRICT LAKHISARAI. 8. SHRI DEO NARAYAN CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE BHOLA CHOUDHARY. 9. RAM NARAYAN CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RAMDEO CHOUDHARY. 10. UPENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE UCHIT SINGH. 11. RAM JATAN SINGH SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR SINGH. 12. JAGESHWAR CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE PRADEEP CHOUDHARY 13. NOKHELAL CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE PRADEEP CHOUDHARY, S.NO. 8 TO 13 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DEEHA, P.S. SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 14. SATDEO KUWAR, SON OF LATE AMAR KUWAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIDHWATI, P.S. TEGHRA, DIST. BEGUSARAI. 15. RAM RATAN CHOUDHARY, SON OF LATE RITLAL CHOUDHARY. 16. SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF PERMESHWARI SINGH. 17. BISHESHWAR CHOUDHARY SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD CHOUDHARY. 18. BISO MAHTO SON OF SHIBOO MAHTO. 19. SURO MAHTO SON OF LATE AJO MAHTO. 20. MAHABIR YADAV SON OF KARI YADAV. 21. NARESH YADAV, SON OF RAJNITEE YADAV. 22. ADALAT YADAV, SON OF LATE GOVIND YADAV. 23. NAHTO CHOUDHARY, SON OF RAM SOGARATH CHOUDHARY. 24. MAKHO DEVI WIFE OF LATE KUSHO CHAOUDHARY. 25. SITA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH. 26. SAJAN DEVI WIFE OF LATE RAMJEE YADAV, S.NO. 15 TO 26 ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE DEEHA, P.O. SAIDPUR, P.S. SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 27. RAMAJI YADAV SON OF CHAMRU YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARTARPUR, P.O. AND P.S. SAHEBPUR KAMAL, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. -----------------------(Respondents) - 2 - ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Shiopujan Singh, Mukesh Kr. Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Sunil Kr. Ravi, AC to GP-15. For the Private Respondent : Mr. Gopesh Kumar, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, AC to GP-15 for the State as also counsel for private respondent nos.5 to 27, who claim themselves to be the settlee of the lands in question in the year 1945 from the ex-landlord Sri Ram Sumran Anathnidhi Ulaw. 2. It appears the Collector, Begusarai under orders dated 28.12.1998, Annexure-2 relying on register-2 declared the lands in question as surplus land of the landlord/land holder Sri Ram Sumran Anathnidhi Ulaw under the provision contained in the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act, 1961. Private respondents thereafter challenged the order dated 28.12.1998 before the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Case No.10 and 11 of 1999 on the ground that Collector had no jurisdiction to look into the statements made and transactions effected prior to 22.10.1959 and relying on the certified copy of the return filed by the ex-landlord at the time of vesting of the estate the Board of Revenue under order dated 9.8.1999, Annexure-3 set aside the order of the Collector, Begusarai dated 28.12.1998. Perusal of order of the Board of Revenue dated 9.8.1999, Annexure-3 indicates that heavy reliance has been placed on the certified copy of the return which was rejected - 3 - by the Collector on two grounds, namely, that return did not match the entries made in register-2 and other ground that return was not signed by the ex-landlord and the officers on every page. Learned Board of Revenue while analyzing the contents of the return observed that it was not mandatory for the landlord or the officers to sign the return on every page. 3. Petitioners challenged the order dated 9.8.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue by filing the present writ application on 22.12.1999 in which private respondent nos.5 to 27 appeared before admission of the case and under orders dated 8.2.2001 this Court granted them liberty to challenge the order dated 28.12.1998 passed by the Collector before the appellate authority as without availing the remedy of appeal they had directly approached the Board of Revenue in Case No.10 and 11 of 1999 against the order dated 28.12.1998 passed by the Collector. In terms of the provisions contained in the Act against the original order passed by the Collector of the district appeal is maintainable before the Divisional Commissioner but ignoring the Divisional Commissioner private respondents directly preferred Revision Case No.10 and 11 of 1999 before the Board of Revenue. 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that in the light of the liberty granted by this Court under orders dated 8.2.2001 private respondent nos.5 to 27 filed Land Ceiling Appeal No.09 of 2000-01 before the Divisional Commissioner, Munger, who dismissed the same under order dated 6.5.2005 affirming the order of the Collector. - 4 - The order of the Board of Revenue dated 9.8.1999, Annexure-3 has been passed without letting private respondents avail the remedy of appeal and the High Court appreciating such fact stayed the operation of the order/resolution passed by the Board of Revenue dated 9.8.1999, Annexure-3 under order dated 8.2.2001 and granted liberty to private respondent nos.5 to 27 to avail the remedy of appeal against the order of the Collector, Begusarai. 5. During the pendency of the writ case the appeal filed by private respondents has been dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Munger under order dated 6.5.2005. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 9.8.1999, Annexure-3 remained inoperative during the pendency of the writ application as the same was stayed under order dated 8.2.2001, which is, accordingly, set aside, however, with liberty to private respondent nos.5 to 27 to challenge the order dated 6.5.2005 passed by the Divisional Commissioner in Land Ceiling Case No.09 of 2000-01 before the Board of Revenue. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court Dated 4th May, 2010 NAFR/Rajesh (V.N.Sinha, J.)