IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13593 of 2005 1. RAM BIBEK SINGH 2. PADUM SINGH 3. ARUN SINGH, ALL SONS OF LATE RAM DAYAL SINGH 4. RAM SAJJAN SINGH 5. SATYENDRA SINGH 6. KAMALESH SINGH, ALL SONS OF LATE KESHARI SINGH 7. SUDARSHAN SINGH SON OF LATE RAM EKBAL SINGH 8. BANARASI SINGH SON OF LATE THAKUR DAYAL SINGH, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KASER, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT-KAIMUR …PETITIONERS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND LAND REFORM, GOVERNEMNT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR CUM DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KAIMUR AT BHABHUA 4. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (LAND CEILING) KAIMUR AT BHABHUA …RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :M/s. Sanjay Singh :Sanjeev Kr. Singh :Umakant Pd. Singh For the State :Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra,G.P.22 :Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha,AC to GP 22 ----------- 07. 27.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and J.C. to G.P.22. Petitioners claim themselves to be under raiyats in respect of the lands which became the subject matter of Case No. 36/1970-71 initiated against the original land holder, namely, Kasturba Kuer. They are aggrieved by order dated 14.05.1993 passed by respondent-Collector as also order dated 04.06.2005 passed by the said respondent on Ceiling Appeal Case No. 13/2005 (Annexure-7) whereby the claim of the petitioners for being declared under raiyats having occupancy right in the lands possessed by them has been considered and rejected. Background facts are as follows.:- 2 Shirodehi Kuer who was ancestor of Kasturba Kuer(original land holder) had executed a deed in respect of 14.11 acres of land inducting the ancestor of the petitioners as Sikmidars. It was agreed by the said document (Annexure-1) that the Sikmidars would pay 11 quintals of paddy to the temple every year. On 26.11.1959, the successor-in-interest Shirodehi Kuer executed yet another registered deed renewing the Bandobasti earlier made in favour of the ancestor of he writ petitioners (Annexure-2). It is contended that the said deed recites that the lands were being settled with the petitioner on perpetual basis. As per the said deed the settlees/Sikmidars were required to deposit 22 quintals of paddy per year for the upkeep of the temple. It is the case of the petitioners that on 10.9.1969 the ancestor of the petitioners were recognized as Sikmidar in respect of the land which was recorded in the Khatiyan respecting the land. In 1971 the present ceiling proceeding was initiated against the original land holder. It is stated that under orders of the Collector, respondent Addl. Collector made a detailed enquiry in respect of the land held by temple managed by Shirodehi Kuer and the said authority found as under:- ^^ jke&tkudh eafnj }kjk /kkfjr xzke Vks<+h ds [kkrk ua0 33 jdok 48-13 ,dM+ Hkwfe esa 14-46 ,dM+ Hkwfe fldehnkj ds'kjh flag ds n[ky&dCtk esa gS A ;g n[ky dCtk gky losZ ds iwoZ 1936 ls eqLekr dLrwjk dqWaoj ls fucaf/kr nLrkost la0 1022 fnukad 29-5-1936 ls gh iqjkuk [ksljk ua0 1049] 1051] 1065] 1167 ,oa 1180 [kkrk ua0 58 jdok 14-11 ,dM+ Hkwfe euh&cWaVkbZ ij nh A gky losZ esa Hkh budk uke fldehnkj ds :Ik esa ntZ gS rFkk jdok 14-46 ,dM+ gS A bl Hkwfe dh mit fldehnkj ds :Ik esa bUgha ds }kjk miHkksx fd;k tkrk gS A vxj fldehnkj dh ekU;rk nh tkrh gS ¼D;ksafd iz'uxr Hkwfe ij eafnj dk [kfr;kuh LokfeRo gS ijUrq n[ky ugha gS½ rks jke&tkudh eafnj }kjk /kkfjr Hkwfe esa 8-23 ,dM+ Hkwfe Hkw&gncUnh lhek ls vf/kd Hkwfe gksrh gS A ,sls ;s xzke dlsj ds jgus okys gSa] budk dksbZ Hkh laca/k lsok;r ls ugha gS vkSj u rks ;s QthZ ;k csukeh O;fDr gSa A ds”kjh flag dks iz'uxr Hkwfe ,oa vius ifjokj esa /kkfjr Hkwfe feykdj HkwgncUnh ls vf/kd Hkwfe ugha gS A ljdkjh vkns”k ds 3 vuqlkj fldehnkj dks jS;r dk ntkZ nsus dk orZeku esa izko/kku gS A ** Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid facts appearing from record the authorities under the Ceiling Act were required to consider the claim of the petitioner for declaring them as under raiyats having occupancy rights in the land held by them and covered by the aforesaid deeds in terms of the provisions contained in section 21 of the Land Ceiling Act (for short „the Act‟). Learned counsel criticizes the order impugned on the ground that respondent- Collector erred in treating the claim of the petitioners as one made under section 22 of the Act. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the consideration respecting the claim of the petitioners has only been deferred by the respondent-Collector till the notification to be issued under section 15(1) of the Act and, as such, no fault can be found therewith. The provision of law contained in sections 12,13,21 and 22 fell for consideration before a Division Bench in the case of Smt. Dulhin Basmatia @ Basamato Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 813. Scanning the scheme of the Act and scope of those sections this Court held as under in paragraph 7:- “Section 12 of the Act entitles a raiyat to resume possession of the land within the ceiling area from under-raiyat in certain conditions in the prescribed manner. The manner has been prescribed in section 13. Section 21 of the Act lays down that if no application for resumption is made within the period specified in sub-section 4 (2) of Section 13 or where the application has been rejected, the right, title and interest of the raiyat in such land shall be deemed to have been extinguished with effect from the date of such expiry or rejection, as the case may be, and subject to other provisions of the Act the under- raiyat of the land shall be “be deemed to have acquired the status of an occupancy raiyat.” Section 22 of the Act confers the status of occupancy raiyat upon an under raiyat in respect of surplus land subject to certain conditions as mentioned therein. A conjoint reading of Sections 21 and 22 makes it clear that whether the land is allowed to be retained by the raiyat within his ceiling area or is declared to be surplus, the under raiyat has got certain pre-existing rights in them. In the former case, there is deemed acquisition of the status of occupancy right in certain situation. In the latter, the status of the occupancy raiyat is conferred upon him by the Act itself. It may be stated here the objects of the Ceiling Act, as would appear from the preamble, are to determine the Ceiling Area of the land holder, acquire surplus land and also to confer the status of raiyat upon certain under raiyats. In that view of the matter, an under-raiyat, even if held to be raiyat in the strict sense of the term, by virtue of those pre-existing rights must be held entitled to resist the claim of pre-emption which, as noticed hereinabove, is a weak kind of right. In the above view of the matter, we do not find ay error in the order under appeal dismissing, in effect, the application by the pre-emptor-appellant under Section 16(3), although for somewhat different reasons.” Considering the observations/findings of this Court in the case of smt. Dulhin Basmatia (supra), I hold that jurisdiction of the ceiling authority conferred u/s 21 of the Act is independent of jurisdiction conferred u/s 22 of the Act. Respondent Collector, therefore, erred in treating the claim of the writ petitioners filed u/s 22 of the Act and thus deferring consideration thereof until notification issued u/s 15(1) of the Act. Claim(s) of the petitioners was/were, thus, required to 5 be considered in terms of provisions contained in section 21 of the Act. For all these reasons, order impugned dated 04.06.2005 (Annexure-7), is quashed and the matter goes on remand to the respondent-Collector for consideration of the claim afresh and disposal in accordance with law. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )