CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4191 OF 1992 ****** In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ******* 1. Ramadhar Singh, S/o Krishnadeo Singh 2. Ram Binay Singh, S/o Krishnadeo Singh 3. Narayan Singh, S/o Krishnadeo Singh 4. Sri Ram Singh @ Ram Singh, S/o Sri Dinesh Singh 5. Saturadhan Singh, S/o late Ram Naresh Singh 6. Ramashish Singh, S/o Sri Dinesh Singh 7. Dinanath Singh, S/o late Sri Ram Naresh Singh 8. Ram Uaday Singh, S/o Sri Krishnadeo Singh 9. Ramanuj Singh, S/o Sri Dinesh Singh All residents of Village Railli, P.S. Belaganj, District Gaya. .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Gaya. 4. The S.D.O., Sadar, Gaya. ..... Respondents. For The Petitioners: Mr. Shiv Nandan Rai, Advocate. For The Respondent: Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, A.C. to S.C.-3. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ***** S K Katriar, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.1984 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, in Revision Case No.30 of 1984 (Ramashish Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar), whereby the revision application preferred by the present petitioners under Section 32 of the Bihar Land 2 Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), has been rejected and the orders passed by the learned authorities below have been upheld. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition may be indicated. It arises out of land ceiling proceedings against the petitioners. It may be indicated by way of background that the matter had in the earlier round of litigation reached the Board of Revenue at the instance of the petitioners. The same was allowed, the orders of the authorities below him were set aside, and the learned first authority was directed to make a fresh enquiry under section 5 (1) (iii) of the Act. After the requisite enquiry as per the prescribed procedure was complete, the learned Sub- Divisional Officer, Sadar, Gaya, passed the order dated 27.1.1983 (Annexure-2), whereby he held that the petitioners were entitled to one unit. The lands in question are Class-III lands and, therefore, they were entitled to 25 acres of land and the remaining lands were declared surplus 3. It is further relevant to state that the authorities were also called upon to declare the validity of the registered deed of gift dated 19.3.1970, executed by the petitioners in favour of 3 strangers whereby they had alienated 13.60 acres of lands. It was found that the same was meant to defeat the provisions of the Act. In other words, the learned Sub-divisional Officer held 32.891/2 acres of land as Class III lands, and the petitioners were entitled to one unit. Therefore, they can retain 25 acres, and the remaining lands were declared to be surplus. In view of the conclusion that the registered deed was meant to defeat the provisions of the Act, 13.60 acres of lands were clubbed with the total lands admissible to the petitioners. In other words they were entitled to retain 25 acres of land which will include 13.60 acres of land alienated by them. The petitioners challenged the same by preferring appeal which was rejected by the learned Collector of the district of Gaya by his order dated 12.12.1983/30.12.1983 (Annexure-3). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the aforesaid revision application which has been rejected by the impugned order. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land-holder in the facts and circumstances of the present case was, prior to 1.1.1971, entitled to hold 40 acres of class-III lands. 4 5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The issues raised before us are essentially issues of facts, namely, the petitioners are entitled to one unit of land, the lands in question are class-III lands, the alienation was meant to defeat the provisions of the Act, are essentially issues of facts, and the three authorities below have consistently held to that effect. The law provides that if the lands in question are class-III lands, then the land-holder would be entitled to one unit covering 25 acres of land. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to substantiate his contention that they were entitled to retain 40 acres of land prior to 1.1.1971. We do not find any ground for interference with the same. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. (S K Katriar, J.) Kishore K. Mandal,J. I agree. (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 13th day of January, 2010 S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR)