IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15666 of 2004 SITA SHARAN SINGH & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 06 04.07.2008 The petitioners are brothers. They are aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.1996 passed by the Additional Collector, Darbhanga in Ceiling Case No. 1/75-76/373/80-81 of the said year. The petitioners’ family has been treated as one unit and granted one unit under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. This order has not been interfered in appeal or in revision, both of which has been dismissed as time barred. Learned Senior counsel in support of the writ petition has raised a very simple issue. He submits that earlier ceiling proceedings 1/75-76 were initiated against the family of the petitioners. In those proceedings a registered partition deed of the year 1954 was produced showing that there had been a partitioned in the family and after considering all materials including the said registered partition deed the proceedings were concluded by order dated 20.01.1989, in which petitioners were allotted these units recognizing separation 2 in the family and this independent individual thereafter. This order was passed in 1989, though, by then the Act had undergone changes. It appears that later it was held that these proceedings were effected in view of the amendment made in the year 1952 and fresh proceedings were initiated. Though, in the earlier proceedings categorical finding was recorded of a registered partition of the year 1954 and six units being given to the family. These proceedings were initiated and notices issued only to one of the brothers. The said brother had since strange relationship with the rest of the family. He appeared and got a unit for himself. He did not inform the other family members. The parties who were fully cognizant of the fact that there was a registered partition and there were six adult members who are entitled to their shares did not choose them to make them party much less noticing the delay in filing proceedings was because unaware of the proceedings himself. It is on these facts, it is submitted that the proceedings having been initiated without notice to the petitioners who had arrived to heard and substantial property 3 were settled in whose favour orders had earlier been passed finally concluding the matter was fatal to the proceedings. State has appeared and filed a counter affidavit and justifying the orders passed, but, so far as the facts as noted above are concerned they have not been controverted. Heard the parties and with their consent the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In view of the facts found above it would be seen that petitioners’ case had already been considered and they had individually allotted units. Now that was taken away that right, their property is being sought to be taken away. In my view, that could not have been done without making them a party or noticing them as valuable right to property is being taken away. Parties must be noticed. State was in know of the claimants as the earlier proceedings had been decided in their favour. The State was bound to notice them and any order passed without notice to them or without hearing them is non est and void ab initio and does not 4 bind in the aforesaid facts. The order of the Additional Collector dated 03.08.1996 is wholly without jurisdiction and is quashed as such. Once the said order is quashed the appellate and the revisional order cannot stand by themselves and collapse by themselves. The result is that the writ petition is allowed and orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 are quashed. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)