IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2732 of 2005 1. KUNJ BIHARI SINGH. 2. MAHABIR PRASAD Both sons of late Ram Charan Mahto 3. JANARDAN SINGH, SON OF LATE AWADH BIHARI SINGH. 4. SARSWATI KUMARI, WIFE OF LATE BALGOVIND SINGH. 5. JAYDEVA PRASAD. 6. PARTHASARTHI KUMAR. 7. ASHUTOSH KUMAR. Sons of late Balgovind Singh 8. SHYAM SUNDAR PRASAD. 9. SUKHDEO PRASAD. 10. SHANKAR PRASAD. Sons of late Nand Kishore Singh All residents of Village-Sidhpur, Police Station-Dumaria, District-Gaya. ……………Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COLLECTOR, GAYA. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, GAYA. 5. MOST. PREM LATA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE RAM KRISHNA PRASAD SINGH. 6. RAMENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ MAIN SINGH. 7. PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH. 8. SAMOD KUMAR SINGH. Respondents 6 to 8 are sons of Ram Krishna Prasad Singh. 9. BAUDH GOPE. 10. HUSSAIN GOPE. 11. JANKI GOPE. Respondents 9 to 11 are sons of late Mangar Gope. Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are residents of Village-Pipra, Police Station-Dumaria, District-Gaya and Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 are residents of Village-Sidhpur, Police Station-Dumaria, District-Gaya. ……………Respondents FOR PETITIONERS : Mr. Surendra Kr. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Praveen Prakash, Adv. FOR STATE : Mr. Rajeev Kr. Singh, G.P. 15 Sunita Kumari, A.C. to G.P. 15 --------- 06 09.03.2011 Petitioners claim lands appertaining to Khata No. 26, Plot No. 78 and Khata No. 06, Plot Nos. 132 and 133, measuring a total area of 6.64 acres of land situated in Village-Sidhpur, Anchal Dumaria, in the District of Gaya. They are aggrieved by the order 2 dated 25.10.2004 passed by respondent-Collector, Gaya, in Land Ceiling Case No. 24 of 2003-04 (Kunj Bihari Singh Vrs. State) as contained in Annexure-1. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that Aklu Gope, Raman Gope, Guruchan Kumhar and Ramjan Khan were the landholders recorded in the C.S. Khatiyan 02.45 acres of land were purchased by father of the writ petitioners no. 1 and 2 and grand father of petitioner nos. 5 to 10 from one of them, namely, Guruchan Kumhar by a sale deed executed on 06.04.1951. It is further the petitioners’s case that the heirs of Ramjan Khan on the same day i.e. 06.04.1951 sold 0.84 decimals of land of the aforesaid plot/Khesra in favour of Ram Charan Mahto (father of petitioner nos. 1 and 2). It is also the case of the petitioners that part of the lands appertaining to Khata No. 26, Plot No. 78, measuring an area of 1.83 acres of lands were settled with the father of petitioner nos. 8 to 10, vide Settlement Case No. 57 of 1959-60 1.52 acres of lands were subsequently settled with the aforesaid Nand Kishore Singh by the ex-landlady, namely, Harpatiya Kuwar@ Bachha Kuwar, prior to vesting of the intermediary rights. The petitioners’ claims continued possession over those pieces of lands by virtue of those sales/settlements made in favour of the petitioners and/or their ancestors. It is the case of the petitioners that a land ceiling case bearing Land Ceiling Case No. 137 of 1973-74 (State Vrs. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh) was initiated against the aforesaid landholder, in which the 3 lands claimed by the petitioners were also clubbed. An objection under Section 10 (3) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act (for short the ‘Act’) was filed on behalf of the petitioners. The said objection was considered and disposed of in the following manner:- (1) The land holder had voluntarily surrendered land appertaining to Khata No. 26, Plot No. 78, which already stood acquired by issuing final notification under the provisions of the Act and, as such, no order thereon with respect to the said claim can be passed. (2) With regard to the lands appertaining to Khata No. 05, Plot Nos. 132 and 133 is/are concerned, it appears that both the land owners/holders as well as the objector(s) were claimed their respective title and possession thereon and, as such, the land appertaining to Plot No. 133 was/were allowed to be retained within the land ceiling unit to be allotted to the landholder/owner. Aggrieved over the said adjudication made in respect of their objection under order dated 08.01.1985 (Annexure-2), the petitioners filed an appeal. It appears one more appeal of identical nature was preferred before the respondent-Collector, giving rise to Ceiling Appeal Nos. 263 of 1984-85 and 40 of 1990-91. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by the said respondent by a common order dated 09.11.1992 4 (Annexure-3). The respondent-Collector narrating the reasons assigned by the original authority for rejection of the claim(s) of the writ petitioners rejected the said appeals. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision before the respondent-Board of Revenue vide Case No. 289 of 1992. Another revision of identical nature seems to have been filed before the said revisional court, giving rise to Case No. 02 of 1993. The respondent-Board of Revenue vide resolution dated 18.10.1994, heard both the matters analogously and by a common resolution dated 18.10.1994 (Annexure-4) disposed of the aforesaid revision application. So far as the claim of the writ petitioners, is concerned, the respondent-Board of Revenue set out in detail their case on internal page 2 the said resolution and after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, disposed of both the revision applications in the following manner:- “According to the State Counsel, the State must not stand as a loser when it comes to acquisition of surplus land. It was argued that in case title over any land under dispute is to be decided, it is the Civil Court which has the competence to do so and not this revisional revenue court. The State counsel felt that the case of the landholder could be reopened by the District Collector under Section 45B of the L.C. 5 Act, 1961 for acquisition of surplus land in case the surplus landholder has wilfully and deliberately got such lands declared as surplus and surrendered which were not belonging to him. I consider these two as fit cases for remand to the Trial Court for fresh examination of the claims of the present petitioners. The order of the Appellate Court passed on 9.11.92 is set aside and the portion of the order of the Trial Court relating to claims of the present petitioners in plot no. 78 and 133 in mauza Siddhpur is hereby made inoperative.” Thereafter, the matter remained pending before the ceiling authority and no action was taken pursuant to the directions/observations made in the resolution of the Board of Revenue dated 18.10.1994 (Annexure-4). This persuaded the writ petitioners to file a miscellaneous petition before the respondent-Collector on 20.12.2003 (Annexure-5), giving rise to Miscellaneous Case No. 24/03/3/4 (arising out of Case No. 263/1984-85). In the said application, the entire history with regard to the proceeding taken in respect of the lands in question and claim of the writ petitioners relating thereto was set out. Petitioners had prayed for release of their entire land of Khata no. 26, Plot No. 78, measuring an area of 3.35 and Khata 6 No. 5, and thereafter by order impugned, the said miscellaneous application was rejected by the respondent- Collector, giving rise to the present case. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents which is on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. While assailing the order (Annexure-5), learned counsel for the petitioners submits that going by the clear and unambiguous directions issued by the Board of Revenue on the revision application preferred by the petitioners the original ceiling authority was required to consider afresh the claims raised by the petitioners in accordance with law. Relying on the concluding paragraph of the resolution of the Board (Annexure-4), it is submitted that the revisional court while remitting the matter back to the original authority under the Ceiling Act had quashed the appellate order dated 09.11.1992 (Annexure-3) and made that part of the order dated 08.01.1985 (Annexure-2) inoperative which dealt with the claim/objection filed by the writ petitioners. It is submitted that since there was inordinate delay in taking up the mater afresh by the ceiling authority in terms of directions issued by the Board of Revenue the petitioners had to file the aforesaid miscellaneous case before the Collector in which a prayer, of course, was made for release of the land. It is submitted that in fact the petitioners had moved the Collector for an order on the administrative side 7 directing the ceiling authority under him to carry out the directions issued by the Board of Revenue on their revision application being Revision case No. 289 of 1992 (Annexure-4). It is submitted that the respondent-Collector completely erred in rejecting the said miscellaneous application on the ground that the same was an application seeking reopening of the proceeding under Section 45B of the Act. It is contended that the matter respecting the claim of the petitioner was not finally dealt with inasmuch as the Board of Revenue had already remanded the matter back to the original authority for re- consideration of the claim/objection of the writ petitioners. It is, thus, submitted that the order impugned passed by the respondent-Collector was passed on wrong/erroneous grounds and, as such, the same should be interfered with and quashed. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supports the reasonings assigned by the respondent-Collector in the impugned order. It is submitted that the day on which the impugned order was passed by the respondent-Collector the said authority was not vested with the power to reopen the ceiling proceeding in terms of Section 45B of the Act. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record. Petitioners had filed objections which were rejected by order contained in annexure-2 on assigning reasons therefor. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order they had preferred an appeal which was considered 8 on merit and dismissed. It appears the petitioners thereafter approached the Board of Revenue in terms of section 32 of the Act challenging the sustainability of those orders. The respondent board of revenue after having considered the submissions made by the parties allowed the revision application preferred by the petitioners and remitted the case back to the original authority under the ceiling act for reconsideration after setting aside the appellate order and also declared that part of the original order (Annexure02) inoperative, where the claim/objection of the petitioners was considered and rejected. In my view counsel for the petitioners is right in his submission that the matter was not required to be dealt with in the light of provisions contained under section 45B of the Act. From bare perusal of the revisional order (annexure-4) it appears the matter was remitted back to the original authority under the Ceiling Act for re-consideration of the matter and, as such, there was no occasion for the writ petitioners to approach the said authority for reopening of the proceeding. The premise under which the impugned order dated 25.10.2004 (Annexure-1) has been passed is, therefore, erroneous and misconceived. Consequently the application is allowed, Order dated 25.10.2004 passed by the respondent-Collector (Annexure-1) is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is at liberty to move the said court again seeking a direction on the authority under him for reconsideration and disposal of the matter in the light of 9 observation/directions issued by Board of Revenue as contained in annexure-4. Safik (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)