IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1017 of 2005 AJAY KUMAR SAHI SON OF SATRUMARDAN SAHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DUMARIAN, P.O. HARINAGAR, P.S. SIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 4. COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH …RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. S.C. Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate . :Mr. Rakesh Chandra & Mr. Ranjan Kr. Dubey For the State :Mr. Kamal Kumar, A.C. to S.C.11 ----------- 04. 09.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Present application has been preferred questioning the sustainability of the order dated 19.11.1992, passed by the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah in L.C. Case No. 78 of 1973-74 (Annexure-1), the order dated 20.11.2002, passed by the Respondent-Divisional Commissioner on appeal filed by the writ petitioner being Appeal No. 436-F/95-96 (Annexure-2) as also the order dated 14.02.2004, passed by Respondent- Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Case No. 3 of 2003 which was heard analogously with Case No. 4 to 35 of 3003 (Annexure-3). Facts giving rise to the writ petition may be summarized as under: As per the genealogy of the family set out in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, the petitioner was one of the 2 sons of Late Satrumardan Sahi against whom a ceiling proceeding was initiated, vide Ceiling Case No. 60 of 1973-74. An objection was filed on his behalf that there was already a partition effected between aforesaid Satrumardan Sahi and his sons and other co-parcener(s) in the year 1959. Several other issues were also raised therein. By a proceeding dated 24.07.1975 under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟), the Collector under the Act, disposed of those matters. Aggrieved thereby, the land-holder(s) went in appeal which also stood disposed of giving rise to the revision application before the Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue remitted back the matter to the original court for deciding afresh. On 10.07.1982, a fresh publication under section 10(2) of the Act was issued which was served on different land holders/writ petitioner(s) as per the decree who were holding lands separately. L.C. Case No. 60 of 1973-74 was continued against the (Late) Satrumardan Sahi. L.C. Case No. 78 of 1973-74 was initiated against the writ petitioner, whereas L. C. Case No. 79 of 1973-74 was initiated against his brother, namely, Ran Vijay Sahi. All the landholders filed their respective objections. It appears that during the pendency of the proceedings aforesaid landholder, namely, Sarumardan Sahi died in the year 1982. It appears that upon the death of Satrumardan Sahi, the Collector, under the Act, amalgamated all the land ceilings cases together and notices were issued under section 3 10(2) of the Act to the landholder in L.C. Case No. 60 of 1973- 74 in which one of the sons, namely, Ran Vijay Sahi was substituted in place of original landholder Satrumardan Sahi. Objections were filed by aforesaid Ran Vijay Sahi and other transferees. On 05.05.1987, the Collector passed the final order. Aggrieved over the said order, several appeals were filed before the Commissioner. On 31.08.1088, Respondent-Commissioner set aside those orders and issued direction to the Collector under the Act to substitute all the legal heirs of Late Satrumardan Sahi. It was further directed that the lands settled by Satrumardan Sahi as a tenure holder before vesting of the rights should not be included in the proceeding. The appellate court was further directed for initiating enquiry with reference to the transfers made between 22.10.1959 to 09.09.1970. It was further directed that the lands voluntarily surrendered by the landlords or acquired by the State should not be included in the ceiling proceeding. After remand the case was bifurcated into several cases. L.C. Case No. 78 of 1973-74 was initiated against the writ petitioner. It further appears from the records that the three proceedings were amalgamated into one proceeding wherein 476.36 acres of lands in question were included with rider that each person in the family shall be considered in possession of 1/5 share of the total land only. The petitioner appeared on notice and filed objection under section 10(3) of the act on 11.12.1989. On 19.12.1992 the Collector rejected the objection which was followed by publication of final statement under 4 section 11(1) of the Act on 7.12.1995. Aggrieved by the said adjudication and publication of final statement, the petitioner filed appeal being Case No.436-F/95-96 which was considered and rejected by order dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure-2) giving rise to the revision application before the Board of Revenue being Case No. 3 of 2003. It appears that several revision applications were also filed by the transferees and another brother of the petitioner, namely, Ran Vijay Sahi. Respondent-Additional Member Board of Revenue by Resolution dated 14.02.2004 (Annexure-3), rejected all the revision applications giving rise to the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order(s), submits that another brother of the petitioner, namely, Ran Vijay Sahi who was also one of the petitioners in Revision Case No. 3 of 2003, preferred a writ petition being CWJC No. 8890 of 2004(Ran Vijay Shahi vs. State of Bihar) which has been considered and disposed of by order dated 21.05.2007. Copy of the said order has been handed in by learned counsel for the petitioner to this Court as well as to the counsel for the State. Copy of the said order dated 21.05.2007 is placed on record marked „X‟. Learned counsel submits that this Court by the aforesaid order remanded the case to the appellate court with certain observations/directions. Operative portion of the said order reads as under: “The order has been dictated in open Court in presence of the parties. There appears to be no other issue. This Court has taken pains and noted down all those controversies only to end the 5 disputes as amongst parties and bring about an end to this matter which is lingered for three decades. The Collector of the District to whom this matter is now being remanded, exercising appellate jurisdiction would decide these issues unbiased by any previous finding of any authority. Once this factual determinations are done then the Collector would indicate the total land holding and total surplus declared in terms of section 15(1) but notifying the same finally give an option to the petitioner to retain lands and once that option is exercised and once that is done, final publication would be made. Land are them to be distributed to the pracha holders. If they have got parchas in respect of lands which are ultimately declared surplus, they would be entitled to be delivered possession forthwith. As this Court is remanding the matter earlier order of the Collector in appeal and the Board of Revenue in revision and the final notification published under section 15(1) is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Collector of the District for expeditiously disposal in view of the observation/direction given above and in accordance with law. It is hoped that the proceeding would be finally concluded within a period of six months from the date of production of this order before the Collector and the petitioner would fully cooperative in the matter. With this direction, this writ application is disposed of.” It is submitted that issues projected in the said application are also involved in the present case. It is thus the contention of the petitioner that the present application may also be disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, after going through the order dated 21.05.2007 does not dispute the aforesaid stand of the petitioner that similar application( filed on behalf of another brother of the petitioner) being CWJC No. 8890 of 2004 has since been disposed of by a Bench of this Court. He is not in a position to state that any writ appeal has 6 been preferred thereagainst. Learned counsel for the State on going through the pleadings made in the present writ petition does not dispute the submission of the petitioner that the issue which has been dealt with in the aforesaid order are involved in the present case also. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present proceeding in the light of the observation/direction issued in CWJC No. 8890 of 2004 (Ran Vijay Shahi vs. State of Bihar). One aspect of the matter, however, requires some clarification. While dealing with the issue relating to will executed by Late Satrumardan Shahi (since deceased on 24.02.1982) in favour of his grandson, this Court has found as under in the order passed in CWJC No. 8890 of 2004.: “It came into effect only on 10.04.1982 when the father of the petitioner died. Therefore, in law any land which on the cut of date was ceiling free in the hands of the father of the petitioner would have to be given to the son of the petitioner being the grand son as per will and cannot be clubbed with the petitioner.” Section 18 of the Land Ceiling Act reads as under: “Restriction on future acquisition by inheritance, bequest, gift, or on alluvial action.-(1) If, after the commencement of this Act, any person, either by himself or through any other person acquires by inheritance, bequest or gift, or by alluvial action, any land which, together with the land, if any, already held by him anywhere in the State, exceeds in the aggregate the ceiling area, then, he shall, within ninety day of such acquisition by inheritance, bequest or gift, and within six months thereof, by alluvial action, submit to the Collector a return by registered post, with acknowledgment due, giving the particulars specified below and selecting the land he desires to retain:- (i) the area and description of such land; 7 (ii) the date of the acquisition; (iii) the manner of the acquisition and the particulars of the documents, if any, under which such acquisition was made; (iv) name and description of the person who held the land before the acquisition; (v) total area of land held any where in the State by the person in whose favour the acquisition is made; and (vi) any other particulars which may be prescribed (2) If he fails to submit the return and select the land within the period specified in sub-section (1), the Collector may obtain the necessary information through such agency as he things proper. (3) On receipt of the return prescribed in sub-section (1) or collection of information under sub-section (2) as the case may be, the Collector shall after giving the land-holder a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence and after making enquiries as he considers necessary select the land which may be retained by the land holder within his ceiling area and also determine to retain under this Act. (4) The Collector shall then acquire the surplus land by publishing in the official Gazette a notification to the effect that such land is required for a public purpose and such publication shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein for the purpose of this Act.” It is thus seen that the Act has provided a mechanism putting restriction on future acquisition by inheritance, bequest, and gift or on alluvial action. According to the provisions contained in the said section, if it is found that the family of the landholder as on 09.09.1970 acquires certain lands in future by reason of acquisition by inheritance, bequest, gift or on alluvial action and the same together with his/their entitlement to hold 8 the land as on 09.09.1970 exceeds limits of ceiling proceeding as provided under the Act then the aforesaid provision contained in aforesaid section comes into play. This Court only indicates that while dealing with the said aspect of the matter, the appellate authority shall keep in focus the aforesaid provisions of the Act. This application is accordingly disposed of in terms of the order dated 21.05.2007, passed in CWJC No. 8890 of 2004. It is clarified that in case of any doubt or difficulty, the authority shall refer to the order dated 21.05.2007 passed in CWJC No. 8890 of 2004 for clarification(s) thereof. Since this litigation is fairly old having been initiated in the year 1973-74 itself, this Court directs that the authority to whom the matter has been remanded for consideration and disposal shall take up and dispose of the same expeditiously. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the present order before the respondent no. 4, Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah within a period of four weeks from today and shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the case. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )