CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.561 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1. SHASHI BHUSHAN PANDEY 2. SANJAY PANDEY, BOTH SONS OF GANGADHAR PANDEY. 3. GIRISH PANDEY 4. SATISH PANDEY, BOTH SONS OF JAGDISH PANDEY, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE SINGARI BIGARI, ANCHAL RAMNAGAR P.S. RAMNAGAR DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN -------------------------(Petitioners) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN AT BETTIAH. 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAND CEILING, WEST CHAMPARAN BETTIAH. 4. SRI AWADHESH PANDEY SON OF LATE RAJA RAM PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MUNWA P.S. SHIKARPUR, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN --------------------------(Respondents) ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay, SC-3(Ceiling) For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Naresh Chandra Verma, Advocate. 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, the State as also counsel for private respondent no.4. 2. Petitioners are the purchaser of the lands detailed in schedule-A and B of Annexure-1, through four sale deeds dated 29.3.1965, 31.3.1965 executed by Sri Tarkeshwar Tiwary. They have filed this writ application questioning the validity of the order dated 1/3.4.1998 passed by the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah in Case No.R.A. 25 of 1996-97, Annexure-8, whereunder request of the petitioners to exclude the lands in question from the ceiling proceeding No.58/01 of 1973-74 initiated against Sri Awadesh Pandey, private respondent no.4 vide Revenue Appeal Case No.100 of 1997-98, Annexure-6 has been rejected on the ground that petitioners - 2 - neither submitted any documentary proof in support of their claim nor did they press their application, Annexure-6 on merit. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the finding of the collector, West Champaran that petitioners did not press the application as also failed to produce any evidence in support of their claim is absolutely incorrect in view of the documentary evidence placed vide list of document dated 24.9.1997, Annexure-7. It is further submitted that petitioners had pressed their application before the Collector and the Collector made an error of record by stating that the application was not pressed. 4. Counsel for private respondent no.4 has opposed the prayer with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit, paragraph-8 in which it has been stated that it is not a fact that petitioners purchased the lands detailed in schedule-A and B of Annexure-1 under registered sale deed dated 29.3.1965 and 31.3.1965. In this connection, he further submits that sale deeds by which the lands detailed in schedule-A and B of Annexure-1 was acquired are in possession of respondent no.4 and it is he who is paying the land revenue as also the water rates and on the basis of the aforesaid averment it is submitted that since the date of purchase till the date of affidavit it is the private respondent no.4 who is in possession of the lands in question. 5. By filing rejoinder counsel for the petitioners has disputed the contention of private respondent no.4 that he is in possession of the lands in question. - 3 - 6. Having heard counsel for the parties, it is evident that the Collector, West Champaran under the impugned order has not considered the request of the petitioner on merit, yet rejected the same as not pressed. In the circumstances, I set aside the rejection of Revenue Appeal Case No.100 of 1997-98, Annexure-6 under the impugned order dated 1/3.4.1998, Annexure-8 but so far the remand of ceiling appeal filed by Awadesh Pandey, the land holder of ceiling Case No.58/1 of 1973-74 is concerned, this Court has not interfered with the same. As for the present the Hon’ble Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar is the authority to consider the reopening of the ceiling case, I remit back the matter for reconsideration of Revenue Appeal Case No.100 of 1997-98, Annexure-6 before the Hon’ble Minister, who should consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Hon’ble Minister. During the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Minister, neither of the parties will sell the lands detailed in schedule-A and B of Annexure-1. 7. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court Dated 6th April, 2010 NAFR/Rajesh (V.N.Sinha, J.)