IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11932 of 2008 1. Nuraie Rishideo son of Late Parmeshwari Rishideo 2. Yasodhar Rishideo son of Late Parmeshwari Rishideo 3. Saryug Rishideo son of Bilat Rishideo 4. Shankar Rishideo son of Nuraie Rishideo All resident of village Madhu tola Raniganj P.S. Raniganj Dist. Araria Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector, Araria 2. The Collector, Araria 3. The Additional Collector, Araria 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reform, Araria 5. The Circle Officer, Raniganj, Araria Respondents ----------- 2 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. Petitioners are red-card holders, in whose favour, earlier settlement had been made with respect to surplus land in a ceiling case. Petitioners have come before this court for quashing the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the DCLR, Araria in Land Ceiling Case no. 130/1973-74. By the impugned order, settlement made in favour of the petitioners with respect to the surplus lands and the parwana issued in their favour in the year 1987 have been cancelled. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the Land Ceiling case no. 130/1973-74 was reopened in the light of the order dated 31.7.1989 passed in CWJC no. 6939 of 1988. One Mosst. Rajat Prabha Rakshit had filed CWJC no. 6939 of 1988 for a direction that lands which were earlier sold by her to several persons by registered sale deeds and transferred through deeds of gift having been shown as surplus lands of the landholder. In the verification report these lands have been shown as transferred lands through gift deeds - 2 - and these deeds were not annulled. In that case, these lands should have been considered to be the lands of donees and purchasers, and should not have been tagged with the lands of the landholders, rather should have been exempted from ceiling proceeding. Illegally such transferred lands have been shown as surplus land of landholders. The writ application was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to file an application under section 45(B) of the Ceiling Act before the Collector of the district and raise all these points before him for reopening the case, specially, so far lands sold and gifted were concerned. This writ application was disposed off with the observation that if such an application is filed and the Collector is satisfied that no proper enquiry has been made under section 5(1) (iii) of the Act, he may reopen the case and make an enquiry as provided under the Act and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the donees/ purchasers. As per direction of this court, Ceiling proceeding was reopened, fresh verification was made and the lands transferred by the landholders and the lands gifted by the landholders were excluded from ceiling proceeding only 34 acres 12 1/ 2 decimals of lands were declared surplus besides lands which were voluntarily surrendered by the landholders. Lands of transferees and doness were excluded from ceiling case. Red Card issued with respect to surplus lands were cancelled and a fresh Gazette notification was published, with respect to surplus lands. It has also been stated in the impugned order that on account of fresh publication of gazette earlier settlement made in favour of landless persons with respect to surplus lands were also cancelled with this - 3 - observation that lands other than those lands will be settled with the landless settlees, considering preference and priority. I do not find that any illegality is there in the impugned order. However, petitioners may file their applications before the Collector/DCLR, Araria claming settlement, out of surplus land. In case petitioners’ claim is found to be proper, preferential to other settlees of surplus lands, settlement may be made in favour of the petitioners in priority basis out of surplus lands. This application is disposed of. shahid (Mridula Mishra, J)