IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12831 of 2010 1. RAM DULAR RAM @ RAM DULAR 2. RAMA SHANKAR RAM BOTH SONS OF LATE KESHO RAM @ KESHO CHAMAR 3. DEO DHARI RAM 4. RAJ DHARI RAM BOTH SONS OF LATE RAMRUP RAM @ RAMRUP CHAMAR 5. LAL BIHARI RAM, SON OF LATE GULAB RAM 6. SITARAM RAM @ SITA RAM, SON OF LATE BARASATI RAM ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JALILPUR, P.S. RAJPUR, P.O. SONAPA, DISTRICT BUXAR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, BUXAR 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR, ARRAH 5. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BUXAR 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BUXAR 7. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, BUXAR 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, CHAUSA, DISTRICT BUXAR 9. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BUXAR 10. THE OFFICER, INCHARGE, RAJPUR POLICE STATION, DISTRICT BUXAR 11. RAM BACHANI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAM NARAYAN RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JALILPUR, P.O. SONAPA, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR. 12. KANHAIYA CHAUBEY, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR NATH CHAUBEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIKROUL, P.O. SIKROUL, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR. 13. RADHE SHYAM RAM 14. SIYARAM RAM BOTH SONS OF LATE KESHO RAM @ KESHO CHAMAR 15. RAJENDRA RAM 16. BAHADUR RAM BOTH SONS OF LATE GULAB RAM ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE JALILPUR, P.S. RAJPUR, P.O. SONAPA, DISTRICT BUXAR. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :- Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate Mr. Surendra Kumar Choubey, Advocate For Res. No. 11 :- Mr. K.H. Joseph, Advocate Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate Ms. Thulsiamma K.P., Advocate For Res. Nos. 13 to 16:- Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate For the State :- Mr. Kamlesh Prasad, A.C. to S.C. VI *********** 2 4 25.11.2010 Petitioners have filed this writ application claiming to be settlees from the State Government in a proceeding initiated against the father of respondent no. 12 under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The lands in question were declared to be surplus lands of the land holder respondent no. 12/his father, under Section 15(1) of the Act. The petitioners claim that they were settled the lands as far back as in 1976. Subsequently one Ram Narayan Ram filed an application before the D.C.L.R. under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act claiming that he was the Bataidaar of the landlord Rameshwar Nath Choubey. Respondent No. 11 is the wife of Ram Narayan Ram. Ram Narayan Ram lost before the D.C.L.R. but succeeded before the Additional Collector. Vide order dated 9.8.1978, passed in Case No. 23 of 1977-78. By the impugned order, the Additional Collector held that the settlement ought to have been made in favour 3 of Ram Narayan Ram and the settlement made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. The submission of the petitioners is that the order contained in Annexure-4 has been passed behind the back of the petitioners, they were necessary parties and ought to have been heard. The fact that has to be noted is that the order was passed as far back as in 1978 and the petitioners have not taken any steps to challenge the order before any authority or even before this Court, for 30 long years. The statement that the petitioners did not have knowledge of the order, has been challenged by the respondents, in view of the events which took place thereafter. In this context, this Court may refer to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 11. Apparently, a case was instituted by the petitioners before the Additional District Magistrate, numbered as Case No. 11 of 1993-94. Before the Additional District Magistrate, the petitioners have accepted the fact that their purchas were cancelled in a proceeding under Section 48 of the Bihar Tenancy Act 4 vide Case No. 35 of 1976. The complaint of the petitioners was that the order of the Additional Collector should be set aside. The Additional Collector conducted a spot enquiry while considering the aforesaid application filed on behalf of the petitioners and came to a finding that Ram Narayan Ram is in possession of the lands in question for the past 30 years. Ram Narayan Ram had in addition to the physical possession produced certain documents such as Malguzari Receipts, Water Tax Receipts and the copy of the Chak Khatiyan in his favour. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the Additional District Magistrate ordered that a Purcha should be issued in favour of Ram Narayan Ram. The petitioners had also filed a Title Suit claiming that the defendants/petitioners or their predecessors in interest should be injuncted from going on the suit lands. The suit was dismissed which led to the filing of an appeal, which was also dismissed, and finally the matter came before this Court by filing Second Appeal No. 37 of 2008, which was disposed of 5 on 5.1.2010. This Court while considering the rival claims of the parties, held that Ram Narayan Ram was in possession of the lands in question after taking into consideration that the settlement was made in favour of the petitioners in a ceiling proceeding. This Court did not find any illegality in the judgments by the Trial and the Appellate Court. This Court at paragraph 9 of the order has held that “the cancellation of settlement of the plaintiffs was quite legal and justified and so was the settlement in favour of the defendant, who was legally in possession of the suit land on the basis of the said settlement.” In view of the facts stated aforesaid, the conclusion is that even though Annexure-4 was passed without hearing the petitioners, the petitioners took the opportunity of appearing before the Additional District Magistrate in 1993 to agitate the matter and also filed a Title Suit in 1993 wherein the petitioners accepted that Annexure-4 had been passed against them way back in 1978, they cannot now raise the plea that they had no knowledge of the order contained in 6 Annexure-4. After loosing in two other forums they have filed the present case. The contention of the petitioners is that Ram Narayan Ram could only have moved under the Ceiling Act for being declared as a Bataidaar and the Additional Collector had no power under the Bihar Tenancy Act to initiate a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. This argument, in my opinion, is misplaced. The prayer that Ram Narayan Ram was not only for a declaration of being a Bataidaar but he had also made a prayer that the settlement ought to have been made in his favour on the basis of the fact that he was a Bataidaar under the provisions of the Ceiling Act itself. The fact that he took recourse to filing an application under Section 48E, before claiming settlement of the lands in question which had been declared surplus would not ab initio make the order declaring the respondent no. 11 as a Bataidaar illegal. This Court also comes to a finding that this writ application has been filed after a delay, since the petitioners definitely had knowledge of the order 7 impugned contained in Annexure-4 by 1993 and they took no steps to file a writ application challenging the order on the grounds mentioned in the writ application. I do not think that the petitioners are justified in now claiming that they had no knowledge of the order contained in Annexure-4 for the reason stated in this order. Considering both the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in this writ application. This writ application is, thus, dismissed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)