CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 9770 OF 1999 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India). 1. AWADH BIHARI SINGH, S/O- LATE RAM LAGAN SINGH. 2. KEDARNATH SINGH, S/O- DHANUKDHARI SINGH. 3. SHAMBHU SINGH. 4. BISHAMBHAR SINGH. BOTH SONS OF SRI RAM SINGH. 5. BRIJ BIHARI SINGH. 6. CHHATHU SINGH. BOTH SONS OF SUKHARI SINGH. 7. RAM AJODHYA SINGH, SON OF LATE BUTANI SINGH. 8. MANOGI SINGH, SON OF HALIWANT SINGH. 9. BIBHISAN SINGH. 10. LALLAN SINGH. 11. DEOMUNI SINGH. 12. SHEOJI SINGH. ALL FOUR SONS OF YADUNANDAN SINGH. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- YADAVPUR, P.S. TIAR, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR :--- PETITIONERS. -VERSUS- 1. STATE OF BIHAR. 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR. 4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, SADAR, ARRAH. 5. ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BIHIYA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR. 6. BISHESWAR PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GAJIAPUR, P.S. BARHARA, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR AT PRESENT RESIDING AT SRI KRISHNAPUR, P.S.- KRISHNAPURI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 7. KALI SAH, SON OF LATE MANGRU SAH. 8. SARJU SAH, SON OF MANGRU SAH. 9. BANGALI SAH, SON OF MANGRU SAH. 10. GHUGALI SAH, SON OF MANGRU SAH. 11. CHANDRAWATI DEVI, W/O- GHUGALI SAH. 12. DHUDH NATH RAM, SON OF LATE MUKH RAM. 13. GANGO DEVI, WIFE OF BUDHNATH RAM. 14. TIMIL RAM, SON OF RAJGRIHA RAM. 15. SAMARACHIA DEVI, WIFE OF TIMIL RAM. 16. BHERRAHI DEVI, WIFE OF RAM AYODHYA RAM. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- VADOPUR, P.S. TIYAR, P.O.- MAHUWAN, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For The Petitioners : KUMAR UDAY SINGH, Advocate. For The State :Kumari Amrita, S.C.-1 (Ceiling). - 2 - ====== P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Amrita, S.C.-1 (Ceiling) for the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur in Ceiling Appeal No. 08/1991-92, Annexure-7, whereunder learned Collector has refused to exclude the lands of the petitioners detailed in Schedule-I and II of this application from the ceiling proceeding initiated against father of Private Respondent No. 6 on the ground that those lands were recorded during the revisional survey operation in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6. Petitioners are further aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.1999 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 15/98, Annexure-8, whereunder the Board of Revenue also affirmed the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur and refused to exclude the Schedule-I and II lands from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that - 3 - the lands detailed in Schedule- I and II has been recorded in the cadastral survey Khatiyan in the name of their ancestors, namely, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh and the cadastral survey Khatiyan of the said land is contained in Annexure-1 to this application which would indicate that the lands in-question appertain to Khata No. 8 and 85 of Village- Yadavpur and Khata No. 11 of Village- Kanhai Gyan Singh and it is recorded in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh. In this connection it is pointed out that the common ancestor of the petitioners is Ram Sahay Singh who had four sons, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh, Dulam Singh. Petitioners belong to the branch of Haliwant Singh who had seven sons, namely, Ram Lagan Singh, Hira Singh, Ram Brichh Singh, Butani Singh, Sukhari Singh, Manogi Singh and Jadunandan Singh. Ram Lagan Singh had three sons, Dhanukdhari Singh, Kedarnath Singh, Awadh Bihari Singh. Kedarnath Singh and Awadh Bihari Singh are petitioner nos. 2 and 1. Hira Singh had one son, Sri Ram Singh who had two sons, namely, Shambhu Singh and Bishambhar Singh who are petitioner nos. 3 and 4. Butani Singh had one son, Ram Ayodhya Singh who is petitioner no. 7. Sukhari Singh had two sons, Brij - 4 - Bihari Singh and Chhathu Singh, who are petitioner nos. 5 and 6. Manogi Singh himself is petitioner no. 8. Jadunandan Singh had four sons, namely, Bibhishan Singh, Lallan Singh, Deomuni Singh and Sheoji Singh who are petitioner nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12. During the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 a report was submitted by the Block Development Officer, Bihiya that the lands are in possession of the petitioners but it appears the report was ignored as from the Register of Lands published during the consolidation proceeding it appeared that the father of Private Respondent No. 6 was the raiyat of the lands in-question. No sooner petitioners learnt that the lands detailed in Schedule- I and II have been wrongly shown in the Register of Land published during the consolidation proceeding in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 they filed their objection before the Consolidation Officer, Bihiya which was registered as Case No. 220/1990-91 in which notice was issued to the father of Private Respondent No. 6 who appeared and conceded the position that the lands have been erroneously recorded in the Register of Land in his name as he is not the raiyat of the lands which would be evident from the cadastral survey Khatiyan which is in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely, - 5 - Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh. The Consolidation Officer under order dated 26.12.1990 allowed the objection of the petitioners directing correction in the Register of Lands so as to include the name of the petitioners as the raiyat of the lands in-question. During the land ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respoindent No. 6 the ceiling authorities neither accepted the report of the Block Development Officer, Bihiya dated 10.08.1977 about the possession of the petitioners over the lands in- question, Annexure-4 nor did they rely on the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 26.12.1990 on the ground that the same was passed on the basis of the compromise between the petitioners and the father of Private Respondent No. 6. The rent receipts dated 21.12.1962, 31.3.1964 and 27.2.1966 contained in Annexure-2 was produced by the petitioners before the authorities to establish that they are in cultivating possession of the lands in-question. During the revisional survey proceeding the lands detailed in Schedule-I and II of this petition was recorded in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6 petitioners filed their objection under Section 106 of the B.T. Act which was registered as Case No. 61 of 1975 in which notice was issued to the father of Private Respondent No.6 who conceded before - 6 - the Survey authorities that the lands have been wrongly recorded in his name as he had no connection with the same and the revisional survey entry may be corrected in the name of the petitioners, whereafter the revisional survey authorities passed order correcting the revisional survey records with respect to the lands in-question in favour of the petitioners. During the land ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 the Block Development Officer, Bihiya submitted report dated 10.8.1977 in Ceiling Case No. 79 of 1973-74 that petitioners are in possession of the lands in-question and the same be excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. The authorities ignored the report dated 10.8.1977 and declared the lands as surplus land of the father of Private Respondent No. 6, whereafter petitioners filed their appeal which was also rejected by the Collector under order dated 03.01.1998, Annexure-7 and the Board of Revenue rejected the revision filed against the said order under orders dated 24.03.1999, Annexure-8. The two orders dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 7 and 8 have been assailed by the petitioners in the instant case on the ground that the authorities while passing the order refusing to exclude the lands detailed in Schedule-I and II of this petition - 7 - from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 have not only ignored the report of the Block Development Officer Bihiya dated 10.08.1977 which was submitted after making local inspection and having found possession of the petitioners over the same but also ignored the order of the survey authorities preceded by an enquiry finding the possession of the petitioners over the lands and in the light of the findings contained in the report and the order the lands should have been excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. 4. I have perused the order passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 7 and 8, wherefrom it does not appear that any cogent reasons have been given to ignore the report of the Block Development Officer which was submitted after verifying the possession of the petitioners over the lands in-question. The authorities below have also not given any reason as to why they should ignore the order passed by the survey authorities. They have ignored the order passed by the survey authorities only on the ground that it is preceded by a compromise between the father of private respondent no. 6 and the petitioners. While rejecting the compromise - 8 - entered into by and between the petitioners and the father of private respondent no. 6 the authorities did not notice the entries made during the cadastral survey that the lands in-question stood recorded in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and there was/is no basis for recording the lands in-question during the revisional survey proceeding in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6. If there was a mistake committed during the revisional survey proceeding and the lands were erroneously recorded in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6, there being no transaction with regard to the lands in-question after cadastral and before revisional survey in favour of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 the lands in-question could not have been recorded in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6 and in appreciation of such fact father of Private Respondent No. 6 conceded before the revisional survey authorities that revisional survey entry of the lands in-question is without any basis, such honest confession made by the father of Private Respondent No. 6 does not mean that he is in collusion with the petitioners. 5. In view of my finding and observation above, I set aside the order passed by the Collector, Bhojpur dated 03.01.1998 and the Additional Member, Board of - 9 - Revenue dated 24.3.1999, as contained in Annexures- 7 and 8 and remit back the matter to the Collector of the District who should either examine the matter himself or ask any of the Collector under the Act to verify whether the lands in-question stood recorded in the cadastral survey in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and if it is found that the lands stood recorded in the cadastral survey in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and there is no basis for recording those lands during revisional survey in favour of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 then the lands be excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. Necessary orders in the light of my order be passed by the Collector of the district or the Collector under the Act authorized by the Collector of the District, as early as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. The Patna High Court. The 27th April, 2010 P.K.P./N.A.F.R. (V.N.Sinha,J.) - 10 -