IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5534 of 2001 SITARAM PRASAD, SON OF LATE JAGDISH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAHISARI, P.S.-UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ....................... PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DALSINGSARAI, SAMASTIPUR. 5. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, DALSINGSARAI, SAMASTIPUR. 6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 7. THE B.D.O., UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. .................. RESPONDENT 1ST SET. 8. CHUNNU SADA, SON OF KUNJO SADA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAHISARI, P.S.- UJIYARPUR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. ................... RESPONDENT 2ND SET ----------- 6 27/1/2009 Heard Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as also counsel for the private respondent no.8 and counsel for the State. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents for restoring his possession over the raiyati land which according to him has been illegally handed over by the officers of the State Government i.e. respondent nos. 3 to 7 to respondent no. 8. Further prayer has been made that respondent no.8 be restrained from making any construction over such land of the petitioners. 2 While pleading of the petitioner in this writ application would give rise to adjudication of private rights involved between him and respondent no.8, this much is apparent from reading of Annexures 4 and 6 that respondent no.8 was said to have given the land in question as a fall out and consequence of conclusion of the ceiling proceedings under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961. It is not in doubt that the petitioner had purchased the land from one Paras Nath Singh after the ceiling proceedings under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 had been initiated. It is, however, not clear as to whether when Paras Nath Singh had sold the land in question on 22.7.1987 permission in terms of Section 37 the aforementioned Act was obtained by him from the Collector of the District. It is not also clear as to whether the Ceiling proceeding against the Paras Nath Singh had already culminated in terms of sections 11 and 15 of the Act and as to 3 whether land in question had been allotted in the share of Paras Nath Singh the land holder for its being alienated in favour of the petitioner. All these are questions of fact which will have to be necessarily gone into in order to decide the question as being sought to be pressed in this writ application. In the counter affidavit however a specific stand taken by the official respondents as also respondent no.8 that the land in question had been made subject matter of some private dispute and it is agnates of the petitioner who have encroached land of the petitioner. If that be so then the remedy for the petitioner would lie in Civil Court as neither the Collector nor this Court would be in a position to adjudicate a purely private dispute and for such litigation a Civil suit before the appropriate Civil Court would be the only remedy for the petitioner. From Annexure-7, a representation filed by the petitioner, it however 4 transpires that when he had represented his case to the Commissioner and Secretary of the Land Reforms Department, he some how taken a view that the land which was being alleged to be forcibly occupied by respondent no.8 was actually allotted to him by issuing a parcha after its required under the ceiling proceeding. In such a situation, the Collector of Samastipur district would the most competent authority to look into this aspect and to find out as to whether land in question which was transferred to the petitioner by Paras Nath Singh was subject matter of a ceiling case and if it was the subject matter of ceiling proceeding, whether transfer in favour of the petitioner by Paras Nath Singh was illegal in terms of prohibition for alienation under Section 37 of the Act (which was repealed only in the year 1997 and if the land in question was legally transferred to the petitioner could it have been allowed to respondent no.8 or any person. In the event the Collector of the district would find that the land actually has been 5 transferred validly in favour of the petitioner by the vendor i.e. Paras Nath Singh from his share, in that event he will definitely pass an order to this effect directing the authorities to ensure that no one takes possession of that land, but if it is found that the land as a matter of fact was subject matter of ceiling proceeding and was illegally transferred in favour of the petitioner by Paras Nath Singh and the land in question has been shown in the area of land to be acquired and pursuant thereto purcha has already been given in favour of respondent no.8 or to any other person, the Collector will pass an order rejecting representation of the petitioner. The Collector has to apply his mind afresh. This Court would also give liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh compact representation with all evidence within a period of three months from today before the Collector of the Samastipur District and in the event such representation is filed, the Collector of the Samastipur District before passing of his final order 6 would afford opportunity of hearing to all concerned including the petitioner and respondent no.8 of this case. It is expected that the Collector of the district, taking into account that this is a very old matter, will pass final order on the representation of the petitioner within a period of next three months from filing of such representation by the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation and direction this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar