CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8157 OF 1999 1. RAJENDRA SINGH 2. JOGENDRA SINGH, BOTH SONS OF LATE JANGI SINGH. 3. KAILASH SINGH. 4. GOVIND SINGH. BOTH SONS OF KALIKA SINGH. 5. BACHA SINGH. 6. SIDHNATH SINGH. BOTH SONS OF RAM ASHRAY SINGH. 7. BRAHMADEO SINGH. 8. BALESHWAR SINGH. BOTH SONS OF RAM LOCHAN SINGH. 9. MUNIJEE SINGH @ SRI MUNI SINGH. SONS OF SIDHESHWAR SINGH. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- YADAVPUR, P.S. TIAR (OLD SHAHPUR), DISTRICT- BHOJPUR :--- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SADAR, ARAH. 5. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BIHIYA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. 6. BISHESWAR PRASAD SINGH, S/O- LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GAJIAPUR, P.S.- BARHARA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT SRI KRISHNA PURI, P.S. S.K.PURI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 7. TIMAL RAM, S/O- LATE RAJGRIHA RAM. 8. SAMRATHIA DEVI, W/O- TIMAL RAM. 10. SUNDARI DEVI, W/O- DIL BAHAR RAM. 11. BAIJU SAH, S/O- LATE DEONARAYAN SAH. 12. RAJ KUMARI DEVI, W/O- BAIJU SAH. 13. DUDHNATH RAM, S/O- LATE BHUKHA RAM. 14. GAGO DEVI, W/O- DUDHNATH RAM. 15. RAMADHAR RAM, S/O- BHUKHA RAM. 16. BAHFE DEVI, W/O- RAMADHAR RAM. 17. GULAB RAM, S/O- DUKHBARAN RAM. 18. SURMANYA DEVI, DAUGHTER OF GULAB RAM. 19. RAMASHISH RAM, S/O- SUKHARIA RAM. 20. SURMANIYA DEVI, W/O.- RAMASHISH RAM. 21. RAMRAJ RAM, S/O- LATE CHUNKI RAM. 22. MUTUR RAM, S/O- LATE MOTILAL RAM. 23. SAMARO DEVI, W/O- MUTUR RAM. 24. DEOMUNI RAM, S/O- LATE BUTAI RAM. 25. LALITA DEVI, W/O- DEOMUNI RAM. 26. SADANAND RAM, S/O- LATE JAIPAL RAM. 27. DEOJHARO DEVI, W/O- SADANAND RAM. 28. GIRJA RAM, SON OF RAMNATH RAM. 29. LAHSIYA DEVI, W/O- GIRJA RAM. - 2 - 30. RAJHAN RAM, SON OF LATE DUKHI RAM. 31(a). TUBI RAM, SON OF LAGNI DEVI. 32. BILAR RAM, SON OF LATE SUKHARI RAM. 33. LALMUNI DEVI, W/O- BILAR RAM. 35. DULHIN BUDHIYA DEVI, WIFE OF MUNNA RAM. 36. BIGUL RAM, SON OF LATE RAJGRIHA RAM, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- YADOPUR, P.S. TIYAR (BIHIYA), DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. 37. SHOBHI THAKUR, SON OF LATE KHUKHARI THAKUR. 38. GULBASO DEVI, WIFE OF SHOBHI THAKUR. 40. BRAMESHWAR THAKUR, SON OF LATE BRIJ BIHARI THAKUR. 41. GULJHARO DEVI, WIFE OF BRAMESHWAR THAKUR, 42. RAMNATH KAHAR, SON OF SHYAM LAL KAHAR. 43. MOTIJHORO DEVI, WIFE OF RAMNATH KAHAR. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- YODOPUR, P.S. TIYAR (BIHIYA), DISTRICT- BHOJPUR., SRI KRISHNAPURI, P.S. K. PURI, DISTRICT- PATNA (RESPONDENT NOS. 7 TO 43 AS ADDED RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO. 2 DT. 14.3.2000). (RESPONDENT NO. 9 EXPUNGED VIDE ORDER NO. 10 DT. 25.10.2000). (RESPONDENT NO. 31 SUBSTITUTED VIDE ORDER DATED 4.12.2001) 31(a). TUBI RAM, SON OF LAGANI DEVI. (RESPONDENT NO. 34 EXPUNGED VIDE ORDER DT. 25.10.2000). (RESPONDENT NO. 39 EXPUNGED VIDE ORDER DATED 25.10.2000). ----------- For The Petitioners : KUMAR UDAY SINGH, Advocate. For The State :Kumari Amrita, S.C.-1 (Ceiling). ====== P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Amrita, S.C.-1 (Ceiling) for the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur in Ceiling Appeal No. 11,13/ 1991-92, Annexure-10, whereunder learned Collector has refused to exclude the lands of the - 3 - petitioners detailed in Schedule-I of this application from the ceiling proceeding initiated against Private Respondent No. 6 on the ground that those lands were recorded during the revisional survey operation in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6. Petitioners are further aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.1999 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 22/98, Annexure-11, whereunder the Board of Revenue also affirmed the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector and refused to exclude the Schedule-I lands from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that while passing the two orders dated 03.01.1998 and 24.3.1999, Annexures- 10 and 11 the Collector and the Board of Revenue have not taken into account the cadastral survey entries in regard to the lands in- question which is in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely, Tulsi Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh, Jagat Singh and Most. Tuna, wife of Dhuma Singh who died issueless. To appreciate the connection of the petitioners with the aforesaid Tulsi Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh, Jagat Singh and Most. Tuna, wife of Dhuma Singh it is necessary to notice the genealogy of the family of Bala - 4 - Singh who is the common ancestor of the petitioners and the aforesaid persons whose name finds mentioned in cadastral survey Khatiyan. Bala Singh had two sons, Rachia Singh and Rameshwar Singh. Rachia Singh also had two sons, Jagat Singh and Dhuma Singh, who died issueless. Rameshwar Singh had only one son, Fauzdar Singh. Jagat Singh had four sons, Ram Lochan Singh, Kalika Singh, Sidheshwar Singh and Paramashraya Singh. Fauzdar Singh also had four sons, Tulsi Singh, Jangi Singh, Lala Bahadur Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh. Tulsi Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh died issueless. Jangi Singh had two sons, Rajendra Singh and Jogindra Singh. Lal Bahadur Singh had only one son, Ramdarshan Singh who died issueless. Ram Lochan Singh had also two sons, Baleshwar Singh and Brahmdeo Singh. Kalika Singh had three sons, Kailash Singh, Ram Ashray Singh and Govind Singh. Sidheshwar Singh had one son, Munijee Singh and Paramashray Singh had two sons, Bachu Singh and Shree Nath Singh. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Jangi Singh, Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of Kalika Singh, Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are the sons of Paramashray Singh, Petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 are the son of Ram Lochan Singh and Petitioner No. 9 Munijee Singh @ Sri Muni Singh is the son of Sidheshwar Singh. The lands - 5 - detailed in Schedule-I of the petition was recorded in the cadastral survey Khatiyan in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners Tulsi Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh, Jagat Singh and Most. Tuna, wife of Dhuma Singh and such fact is evident from Annexures 1 and 2, the copy of cadastral survey khatiyan of Village- Yadopur and Kanhai Gyan Singh. Following further evidence the petitioners produced before the authorities to establish that they are in cultivating possession of the lands in-question, namely, the canal purchas dated 23.3.1973, 29.2.1960, 2.1.1958, 4.4.1968, 19.10.1968 27.10.1969, 17.10.1969, 21.11.1970, 10.11.1971 contained in Annexure-3 series, the rent receipts dated 27.3.1963 and 30.3.1960 contained in Annexure-4 series. During the revisional survey proceeding the lands detailed in Schedule-I of this petition was recorded in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6 petitioners filed their objection under Section 106 of the B.T. Act which was registered as 518 of 1970 and 117 of 1970 and after notice the father of Private Respondent No.6 conceded before the Survey authorities that the lands have been wrongly recorded in his name as he had no connection with the same and the revisional survey entry may be corrected in the name of the petitioners, whereafter the revisional survey authorities passed order - 6 - dated 14.5.1974 and 30.4.1975, Annexures- 5/A and 6/A correcting the revisional survey records with respect to the lands in-question in favour of the petitioners. During the land ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 the Block Development Officer, Bihiya submitted report dated 30.7.1977 in Ceiling Case No. 79 of 1973-74 that petitioners are in possession of the lands in-question and the same be excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. The authorities ignored the report dated 30.7.1977 and declared the lands as surplus land of the father of Private Respondent No. 6, whereafter petitioners filed their objection which was also rejected by the Collector under order dated 03.01.1998, Annexure-10 and the Board of Revenue under orders dated 24.03.1999, Annexure-11. The two orders dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 10 and 11 have been assailed by the petitioners in the instant case on the ground that the authorities while passing the order refusing to exclude the lands detailed in Schedule-I of this petition from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 have not only ignored the report of the Block Development Officer Bihiya dated 10.08.1977 which was submitted after making local inspection and - 7 - having found possession of the petitioners over the same but also ignored the order of the survey authorities preceded by an enquiry and having found the possession of the petitioners the lands should have been excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. 4. I have perused the order passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 10 and 11 wherefrom it does not appear that any cogent reasons have been given to ignore the report of the Block Development Officer which was submitted after verifying the possession of the petitioners over the lands in-question. The authorities below have also not given any reason as to why they should ignore the order passed by the survey authorities. They have ignored the order passed by the survey authorities only on the ground that it is preceded by a compromise between the father of private respondent no. 6 and the petitioners. While rejecting the compromise entered into by and between the petitioners and the father of private respondent no. 6 the authorities did not notice that during the cadastral survey the lands stood recorded in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and there was no basis on which it was recorded in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 during the - 8 - revisional survey proceeding. If there was a mistake committed during the revisional survey proceeding and the lands were erroneously recorded in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6 as there being no transaction with regard to the lands in-question after cadastral and before revisional survey in favour of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 there was no basis for recording the lands in-question in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6 and in appreciation of such fact father of Private Respondent No. 6 conceded before the revisional survey authorities that revisional survey entry of the lands in-question is without any basis such honest confession made by the father of Private Respondent No. 6 does not mean that he is in collusion with the petitioners. 5. In view of my finding and observation above, I set aside the order passed by the Collector, Bhojpur dated 03.01.1998 and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 24.3.1999, as contained in Annexures- 10 and 11 and remit back the matter to the Collector of the District who should either examine the matter himself or ask any of the Collector under the Act to verify whether the lands in-question stood recorded in the cadastral survey in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and if it is found that the lands stood recorded in the - 9 - cadastral survey in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and there is no basis for recording those lands during revisional survey in favour of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 then the lands be excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. Necessary orders in the light of my order be passed by the Collector of the district the Collector under the Act authorized by the Collector of the District, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. The Patna High Court. The 27th April, 2010 P.K.P./N.A.F.R. (V.N.Sinha,J.)