CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.111 OF 2000 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.) 1. RANJIT KUMAR SINGH 2. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH 3. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH, ALL SONS OF SACHIDANAND SINGH. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- SONEPAY, POLICE STATION- JAMUI MAFFASIL, DISTRICT- JAMUI, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT MOHALLA- MAHARAJGANJ, P.S.- JAMUI TOWN, DISTRICT- JAMUI. 4. UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF BABU ISHWARI PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAWLAPUR, POLICE STATION- BARAHIA, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI :---- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE LAND REFORMS COMMISSIONER, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COLLECTOR, LAKHISARAI. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, LAKHISARAI. 4. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, HALSI ANCHAL, DISTRICT- LAKHISARAI. 5(i) UMA SHANKAR PD. SINGH. 5.(ii) BIJAY SHANKAR PD. SINGH. 5(iii). HARI SHANKAR PD. SINGH, ALL SONS OF LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAMBEY, P.S.- WARSALIGANJ, DISTRICT- NAWADA :--- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For The Petitioners :Mr. SHRAWAN KUMAR, Senior Advocate & M/S Rajiv Nayan Singh, Satish Kumar Singh, Dinesh Maharaj, Advocates. For The Respondent :Kumari Amrita, S.C.-1 (Ceiling). 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 Smt. Amrita, Standing Counsel No.1 (Ceiling) for the State. None appears for Private Respondent Nos. 5(i),(ii) and (iii), the heirs of the landholder although notice of these proceedings have been served on them. 2. Petitioners claim themselves to be the raiyat of the lands detailed in paragraphs 11,13,15 and 17 of the writ petition which they acquired through registered sale-deed dated 18.8.1966 from Rajeshwari - 2 - Prasad Singh who was the settllee of the lands in-question prior to the vesting of the Estate by way of Hukumnana from the ex landlord Rameshwar Prasad Singh as on the basis of the settlement Jamabandi was also created in the name of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh vide Jamabandi No. 36/1961-62. Rajeshwari Prasad Singh later transferred the lands in-question in favour of the four petitioners under sale-deed dated 18.8.1966. By filing this petition petitioners are assailing the order dated 24.11.1999 passed by the Collector, Lakhisarai, Annexure-5, whereunder he has declared the lands in-question as the surplus land of Rameshwar Prasad Singh ignoring Jamabandi No. 36/1961-62 created in favour of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh and the registered sale-deed dated 18.8.1966 executed by Rajeshwari Prasad Singh in favour of the four petitioners on the basis of which Jamabandi was also created in favour of the petitioners in the year 1968. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when they learnt that the lands in-question have been erroneously declared as surplus land of Rameshwar Prasad Singh in ceiling case initiated against Rameshwar Prasad Singh then the petitioners requested the authorities to reopen the ceiling case of Rameshwar Prasad Singh to consider the exclusion of the lands in-question from the ceiling case of Rameshwar Prasad Singh as the land stood settled in favour of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh in the year 1945 whereafter Jamabandi No. 36/1961-62 was created in favour of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh who executed sale-deed dated 18.8.1966 in favour of the petitioners on the basis of which petitioners were also mutated in the year 1968 and with reference to the aforesaid transactions it was submitted that the lands could not have been declared as surplus of Rameshwar Prasad Singh unless it is held that the Hukumnama of 1945 and the registered sale-deed dated 18.8.1966 are sham transactions. - 3 - 4. Learned Collector under the impugned order dated 24.11.1999, Annexure-5 ignored the aforesaid submission and included the lands in- question as the surplus land of Rameshwar Prasad Singh. Under orders dated 28.10.2000, Annexure-9 Collector further proceeded to reject the objection filed by the petitioners. While rejecting the objection of the petitioners under orders dated 28.10.2000, Annexure-9 the Collector did not even notice the report of the Circle Officer, Halsi dated 24.2.1989 as contained in Annexure-4 series in which it was specifically reported that in the light of the Hukumnama executed by Rameshwar Prasad Singh in favour of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh and the return filed at the time of vesting Jamabandi No. 36/1961-62 was created in favour of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh and thereafter Rajeshwari Prasad Singh executed sale-deed dated 18.8.1966 in favour of the petitioners who with reference to their possession over the lands in-question were mutated in the revenue records in the year 1968. The order of the Collector dated 28.10.2000, Annexure-9 is at page-136 of the brief perusal whereof would indicate that the same has neither taken note of the objection filed by the petitioners nor the contents of the report of the Circle Officer dated 24.2.1989 and is cryptic order. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that if the two orders dated 24.11.1999 and 28.10.2000, as contained in Annexures 5 and 9 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector under the Act to pass fresh orders in the light of the objection of the petitioners contained in Annexure-8 series and the report dated 24.2.1989, Annexure-4 series it may not be difficult for the authorities to conclude that the petitioners have remained in continuous possession of the lands in-question with effect from 18.8.1966 the date of the execution of the sale-deed the lands could not be acquired as surplus of Rameshwar Prasad Singh. - 4 - 6. Counsel for the State has opposed the submission. According to her the story about the Hukumnaka executed by the landholder in favour of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh was never placed before the Collector by the landholder and the transaction made in favour of the petitioners by Rajeshwari Prasad Singh was also never disclosed before the Collector when the matter was initially considered before the reopening of the case in the year 1994, as such, the subsequent case of the petitioners that the lands in-question was settled by the landholder in favour of Rajeshwari Prasad Singh in 1945 who sold the same in the name of the petitioners by registered sale-deed dated 18.8.1966 should be looked into by this Court with suspicion. In this connection, she further submitted that even after reopening of the case and before passing of the order dated 24.11.1999 both the petitioners were present before the Collector, they did not place on record the Hukumnama and the sale-deed executed in their favour by Rajeshwari Prasad Singh. 7. The submission of the State counsel has been noted only for being rejected as the report of the Circle Officer, Halsi dated 24.2.1989 was very much on record at the time of passing of the final order in the year 1994 as also thereafter at the time of passing of the order dated 24.11.1999 but if the authorities have not chosen to consider the same, petitioners cannot be blamed for such omission on the part of the authorities. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder further submitted that the story about the Hukumnama cannot be disbelieved as Rameshwar Prasad Singh while filing the return after vesting of his Estate has shown in the return that Rajeshwari Prasad Singh is the settlee of the lands in-question by way of Hukumnama and in view of Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act Rajeshwari Prasad Singh being in possession of the lands in-question on the date of vesting became the raiyat and had the - 5 - authority to execute the sale-deed dated 18.8.1966 in favour of the petitioners. I see substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Rajeshwari Prasad Singh has been shown in the return filed at the time of vesting of the Estates as person in possession he becomes the raiyat of the lands in-inquestion with authority to transfer and the sale-deed executed by Rajeshwari Prasad Singh in favour of the petitioners could not have been ignored by the authorities while adjudicating the ceiling case of Rameshwar Prasad Singh. 9. In view of my observation and findings above, I set aside the order dated 24.11.1999 and 28.10.2000 contained in Annexure-5 and 9 passed by the Collector, Lakhisarai and remit back the matter to the Collector, Lakhisarai to reconsider the matter in the light of the report of the Circle Officer, Halsi dated 24.2.1989 as also the return filed by Rameshwar Prasad Singh, the ex landlord at the time of vesting of the Estate with regard to the lands in-question. 10. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. The Patna High Court The 4th day of May, 2010. P.K.P./N.A.F.R. (V.N.Sinha,J.)