IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1696 of 2003 RAM PRAVESH MAHTO, SON OF LATE DHARICHHA MAHTO OF VILLAGE LAUKHAN TOLE (LALA TOLA), P.O. LAUKHAN, P.S. GHORASAHAN, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. ----------- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SIKARAHNA AT DHAKA 4. MOSTT. KRISHNA PANDEY, WIDOW OF LATE SYAMBAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. MAHUAWA, P.S. CHIRAIYA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI ------------- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, No. 3, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay A.C. to S.C.-2 (Ceiling) 4. 09.07.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lands pertaining to Khata No. 291, Plot No. 3408 of an area 2 Katthas, 10 Dhurs of village Laukhan, P.S. Ghorsahan, District East Champaran, originally belonged to one Singhal Pandey, who sold the same on 24.9.1954 to one Turobdin Mian of Village Laxmipur by a registered sale deed, as contained in Annexure-1. Subsequently, Md. Idris, son of aforesaid Turobdin Mian, by another sale deed dated 27.2.1991, sold the aforesaid land to one Ram Ashray Mahto of Village Laukhan in the year 15.1.2001 and later on, sons of aforesaid Ram Ashray Mahto, namely, Baijnath Mahto and Raghunath Mahto again sold the aforesaid land to the petitioner by a registered sale deed as contained in 2 2 Annexure-3, on 15.1.2001 and the petitioner was put in possession thereof. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the Records of Right of the State of Bihar. He started paying rent to the State and rent receipts thereof were issued in his favour by the State of Bihar which is contained in Annexure-4. It has also been stated that the aforesaid Singhal Pandey, who sold the land in favour of Turubdin Mian, as aforesaid, has sold the lands to several persons by the aforesaid sale deed also. Several lands which were sold by him are reflected in sale deed, as contained in Annexure-1. It has been contended by the petitioner that the aforesaid Singhal Pandey was son of Shiv Pandey, one of the sons of Durga Pandey, and the lands sold by him were given to him on partition in the family. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that without appreciating these facts and without appreciating that the land was alienated by one of the co-sharers of the family as far back as on 24.9.1954 (prior to 22.10.1959), the lands have been declared surplus in Gazette Notification under Section 5 and 5/1, as contained in Annexure 5, in the Ceiling Proceedings initiated against Krishna Pandey, widow of late Swamber Pandey, who happens to be the uncle of the aforesaid Singhal Prasad Pandey, the first transferor. It is further contended that the petitioner being a bona fide purchaser from the subsequent transferee of the transaction dated 24.9.1954, the aforesaid transaction, being prior to the year 3 3 1959, cannot be enquired into by Ceiling authority which is manifest from Section 5(1) (iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Petitioner’s claim is that neither he nor his vendor nor his vendor’s vendor was made a party in the Ceiling Proceedings. They were not given notice at any stage of the proceedings since its initiation. Therefore, they were not able to file any objection. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State stating therein that the Ceiling Proceedings concerned was initiated against the land holder Syambar Pandey and subsequent upon his death, his widow and two sons were substituted and the proceedings came on and after publication of Notification under Section 15(1). Further submission in the counter affidavit is that the lands acquired by the State are now in the process of being distributed amongst the landless persons. It is also the stand of the State that the petitioner was in full knowledge of the proceedings from the time of its inception in the year 1974-75 and the Anchal Adhikari concerned in his verification report has clearly stated that the lands concerned belong to the land holder. However, there is no denial of the facts stated in the petition that the lands were purchased by the petitioner in the manner described, as aforesaid, and mutated in his name in the Records of Right of the State Government, which is accepting rent from him and land receipts are being issued in 4 4 his favour. Nothing has been brought on record also to support that the petitioner was in full knowledge of the proceedings from its inception. Merely a bald statement in this regard has been made. In my considered view, it was a fit case for the petitioner for filing an application under Section 45B of the Act. This Court, thus, grants liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the competent Ceiling Authority under Section 45B of the Act within two months from today stating all the facts and raising all the points mentioned in this writ application. Upon filing such an application by the petitioner, the Ceiling Authority concerned shall dispose of the same in accordance with law after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is made clear that since the petitioner has filed this writ application in 2003 and this Court has already passed an interim order to the effect that he should not be dispossessed forcibly from the disputed lands as described in paragraph-5 of this writ application, the Ceiling Authorities shall not forcibly disposses the petitioner from the lands described in paragraph-5 of this writ application till final disposal of his application. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application stands disposed of. S.Ali (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)