IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4299 of 2010 1. RAJIV KUMAR AMBASTHA S/O SITA RAM PRASAD R/O VILL BISHNUPUR,P.S.BEGUSARAI,DISTT-BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR BEGUSARAI 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR ,LAND REFORMS BEGUSARAI 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI BEGUSARAI 5. THE PRESIDING OFFICER CUM MINISTER,REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS STATE OF BIHAR,PATNA with CWJC No.5541 of 2010 1. USHA RANI W/O SITA RAM PRASAD R/O VILL VISHANPUR, P.S.BEGUSARAI, DISTT-BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE COLLECTOR BEGUSARAI 3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR , LAND REFORMS BEGUSARAI 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI BEGUSARAI 5. PRESIDING OFFICER CUM MINISTER , REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 4. 22.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C. Thakur, S.C.-IV (Ceiling) for the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 16.6.2009 passed by the Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna in Misc. Case No. 2/02, Annexure-7/1, whereunder the learned Minister refused to reopen Ceiling Case No. 9/73-74 initiated against Mahanthh Ram Jivan Das of Bishanpur, whereunder the lands in-question bearing Plot No. 61 appertaining to Khata No. 398 measuring 72 decimals was acquired along with the other lands of Mahanth Ram Jivan Das. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the lands bearing Plot no. 61 appertaining to Khata No. 398 of Tauzi No. 766 - 2 - did not belong to the said Mahanth and has been wrongly clubbed along with his lands and declared surplus and acquired in the said ceiling case initiated against the Mahanth. According to learned counsel for the petitioners aforesaid land bearing Plot No. 61 appertaining to Khata No. 398 measuring 72 decimals was the Gairmajarua Khas land and in possession of Boudhu and Ram Bhajju Misir, son of Heman Misir. Out of the two brothers Boudhu sold the lands in-question in favour of Ram Chandra vide registered sale-deed dated 24.5.1968 and Ram Chandra sold the lands in-question to the two petitioners under registered sale deed dated 9.12.1985 but without notice to the petitioners aforesaid land has been acquired in the ceiling proceeding initiated against Mahanth Ram Jivan Das of Bisanpur. Later, the authorities realized their mistake and passed order dated 30.1.2001 in Settlement Case Nos. 46,45/2000-01 calling upon the petitioners to accept the lease of the lands in-question. In response to such order and notice petitioners submitted before the authority that after the sale of the lands by Boudhu in favour of Ram Chandra under sale deed dated 24.5.1968 Ram Chandra was mutated and was paying rent as is evident from the rent receipt. Later when the petitioners purchased the lands in-question from Ram Chandra under sale-deed dated 9.12.1985 they were also mutated and since their purchase they are paying rent of the lands in-question and have raised their house and are living in the same which is within the municipal limit of Begusarai Municipality. 4. Inspite of several indulgence granted to the State counsel - 3 - to file counter affidavit under order dated 11.3.2010 and 5.4.2010, no counter affidavit has been filed as it is said that the Deputy Collector Land Reforms who is authorized to file counter affidavit has been transferred. The nature of the order which is being proposed to be passed in the matter does not admit of any counter affidavit, in the circumstances, further prayer of the State counsel for time to file counter affidavit is being refused. 5. It is evident from the order dated 30.1.2001 passed in Settlement Case No. 46, 45/2000-01 that the authorities in recognition of the fact that petitioners are in possession of the lands in-question themselves proposed to settle the lands in-question in their favour. In the circumstances, there is no difficulty in concluding that the petitioners are in possession of the lands in-question by virtue of the sale-deed executed in their favour by Ram Chandra which is dated 9.12.1985 and Ram Chandra got the title over the lands-in-question by virtue of the sale deed executed in his favour by Boudhu Misir who is shown in the cadastral survey Khatiyan as the person in possession. 6. In the background of the aforesaid facts, there is no difficulty for this Court to conclude that Boudhu Misir became raiyat of the lands in-question after vesting of the Estate in terms of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1951. Accordingly, the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister dated 16.6.2009 in Misc. Case No. 2/2002, Annexure 7/1 in both the applications refusing to reopen the ceiling case is set aside with direction to the Collector, Begusarai to look into the validity of the Khatiyan, Annexure-1 and the sale-deeds executed - 4 - by Boudhu Misir in favour of Ram Chandra dated 24.5.1968 and the two sale-deeds executed by Ram Chandra in favour of the petitioners dated 9.12.1985 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law recognizing the position that Mahanth Ram Jivan Das of Bishanpur was not the raiyat of the lands in-question. In view of the khatiyan entries, Annexure-1 the offer of settlement given to the petitioners under order dated 30.1.2001 passed in Settlement Case Nos 46, 45/2000-01 is also quashed. It goes without saying that if the Collector, Begusarai wishes to dispute the entries made in the Khatiyan then he has to file a civil suit for declaration that the lands belong to the State and not to Boudhu Misir or his transferees Ram Chandra and the petitioners. 7. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)