CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5690 OF 2001 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. … 1. Most. Maya Devi, wife of Late Kaushal Kishore Prasad Singh, 2. Lala Sashi Bhusan Prasad Singh, son of Late Kaushal Kishore Prasad Singh, 3. Lallan Kumar Singh, son of Late Kaushal Kishore Prasad Singh, Petitioner no.3 is mentally retarded and is represented through his natural guardian mother i.e. petitioner no.1. All of village and PS Naokothi, District Begusarai – petitioners. Vs. 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Land Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Begusarai – Respondents. … For The Petitioner :MR. DARONACHARYA AND MR. CHOUDHARY SHYAM NANDAN, ADVOCATES. For The Respondent :MR. R.C. THAKUR, Standing Counsel (Ceiling). P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan,J. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, dated 18.2.1997 passed in Ceiling Revision No. 68/1997, the order of the Collector, Begusarai, dated 9.8.1996 passed in Ceiling Case No. 27/1993 under section 37 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Land Ceiling Act‟). 2. The facts of the case are that Ayodhya Prasad Singh created a trust by execution of a registered trust deed in the year 1932 which was subsequently corrected and cancelled by a registered trust deed in the year 1945. A land ceiling proceeding was initiated against Ayodhya Prasad Singh Trust (A.P.S. Trust) with respect to large number of lands (about 490 acres). The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that their 2 lands have been included in the ceiling proceeding although they are not part of Ayodhya Prasad Singh Trust. 3. The case of the petitioners is that on publication of the gazette notification under section 11 on 11.9.1990 they learnt that their lands have been declared as surplus lands of Ayodhya Prasad Singh Trust. Thereafter they filed an objection vide Case No. 112/1990 before the Collector. The objection filed by the petitioners was rejected on 24.8.1992 on the ground that it has been filed after a delay of thirteen to fourteen years. The petitioners thereafter filed an application under section 37 of the Ceiling Act which was rejected on 21.11.1995 for the reason that section 37 of the Ceiling Act has been deleted from the Act. The petitioners thereafter filed CWJC No. 11530/1995 and this court by order, dated 11.12.1996 has held that since the application was pending before the section 37 was deleted from the Act, the Collector was bound to consider and pass an appropriate order on the petition under section 37 of the Ceiling Act. Accordingly the Collector by order, dated 9.8.1996 considered the application and rejected it. The petitioners moved the Member, Board of Revenue challenging the order of the Collector which was also dismissed by order, dated 18.2.1997. 4. The petitioners‟ case, simply stated, is that Title Suit No. 58/1970 was filed in which the petitioners and Ayodhya Prasad Singh were respondents. By a compromise decree, dated 31.3.1990 the lands of Tauzi No. 779 which included plots no. 1889 and 1891 were allocated to the share of Bhagwan Singh, the ancestor of the petitioners which would be apparent from Annexure 4 which is the final decree (Takhtabandi) 3 prepared by the court in T.S. No. 58/1970. This indicates that Bhagwan Singh was allotted amongst others plot nos. 1889 and 1891 which falls within Tauzi no. 779. There is a specific pleadings with respect to this fact at paragraph 10 of the brief. In any event it is not disputed that Tauzi no. 779 includes plot nos. 1889 and 1891. 5. It appears that the land was included in the ceiling proceeding, because of the fact that Tauzi no. 779, plot nos. 1889 and 1891 were mentioned in the earlier trust deed executed in 1932. However, there was a correction of the trust deed and Tauzi No. 779 was excluded in the said trust deed. The trust was prepared as far as back in 1945 and, thus, there was no occasion for the petitioners or Ayodhya Prasad Singh to exclude Tauzi no. 779 except for the good reason, that in fact the aforesaid Tauzi was not part of the trust deed. It would be relevant to quote the trust deed which would show that these lands were excluded from the trust property : “The properties situated in Thana Dalsinghsarai and Teghra and also Begusarai bearing T. Nos. 790, 660, 778, 780, 779, Tafriq 8-9 mentioned in the trust deed do not form part of the trust deed which is hereby cancelled. “Signed Ayodhya Prasad Singh by his own pen. 1st April, 1945.” 6. Having quoted the clause aforesaid this court will now consider the reasons given by the Collector and the Member, Board of Revenue for rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 7. The Collector has stated that there has been a delay and that in the year 1991-92 it was decided that land should be described as a Sairat in view of the fact that it was an orchard. It has also been stated 4 that on Khata No. 1226, khesra No. 1889, .04 decimal of land has been utilised for building a Panchayat Bhawan. Therefore, the Collector rejected the application of the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that .04 decimal of land has been donated by the petitioners for the purpose of construction of the Panchayat Bhawan and the decision to declare the land as Sairat was unilateral decision of the State Government after the ceiling proceeding was initiated. 9. The order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue is misplaced, as the Additional Member on the basis of surmises criticized the order passed in the suit and has raised doubts regarding the partition itself. The Additional Member has quoted the contents of the trust deed but has rejected it on the ground that the lands have been included in the ceiling register as property of the trust, which has been done after verification. In fact the court has also gone so far as to say that the report of the Circle Officer showing that the lands are in possession of the petitioners is collusive, fraudulent and factually incorrect report. As I noted earlier has doubted the final decree in Civil (Partition) Suit No. 558/1970 which he could not have done. The reasons are even stranger as the Member, Board of Revenue finds that Bhagwan Singh, ancestor of the petitioners was not exclusive owner of Tauzi no. 779 and has relied on the earlier trust deed by stating that Ayodhya Prasad Singh had purchased the lands of Tauzi no. 779 from the other co-sharers. That trust deed has been revised and cancelled by the later trust deed in 1945 and, therefore, the basis of concluding that Tauzi no. 779 was again purchased by 5 Ayodhya Prasad Singh does not stand the test of reasonableness. 10. It has also been noted by the Collector that it can be possible that certain developments could have taken place between 1990 and 1945 (i.e. the date of preparation of the final decree and the date of execution of registered deed of trust). It has also been noted that the lands might have again been purchased by Ayodhya Prasad Singh. Such an order passed on the basis of surmises or on the basis of a suspicion that certain intervening circumstances may have arisen after the decree of partition is completely without any legal premise. This court finds that the order passed by the Collector is bad in law and the reasons cannot stand the test of legal premises. 11. I, therefore, quash the order, dated 9.8.1996 and the order, dated 18.2.1997 passed by the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of Revenuer and further direct that the Collector, Begusarai may pass appropriate orders releasing the land of Tauzi no. 779, appertaining to plot nos. 1889 and 1891 in favour of the petitioners within a period of four months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 12. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. Patna High Court, June 22, 2010, Haque / N.A.F.R. (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)