IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11448 of 2002 1. Madan Kishore Sharma, son of Bam Deo Singh, 2. Durgesh Baibhav, son of Madan Kishore Sharma, both of village Saratha, PS Dhaka, District East Champaran, Motihari – Petitioners. Vs. (1) The State of Bihar through the Commissioner, Land Reforms, Patna. (2) The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari. (3) The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, East Champaran, Motihari – Respondents. ----------- 11 20.9.2010 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire Land Ceiling Case No. TR 2/1993-94 including the notification issued under section 11(1) and section 15(1) issued on 24.7.2001of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (‘the Act’, hereinafter) issued in Annexures 8 and 9 respectively. The petitioners are the son and grand son of the land holder Bam Deo Singh against whom Ceiling Case No. 1/1975-76 was initiated. On 2.3.1981 ceiling proceeding was dropped as the Collector came to the finding that Bam Deo Singh did not possess land in excess to the ceiling area. One Ram Chandra Paswan filed an application before the Collector alleging that the petitioner had about 50.95 decimals of lands in excess of the ceiling area which have deliberately not been declared by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that they have only 4.91 ½ acres of land. Rest of the lands mentioned by Ram Chandra Paswan was not in possession of the petitioners. The Additional Collector granted permission to reopen the ceiling case which was numbered as 2 Ceiling Case No. 2/1993-94. Apparently the petitioner had filed an objection under section 5(1)(iii) of the Ceiling Act claiming that he had sold lands before 22.10.1959 to six persons. It was also the stand of the petitioner that between 22.10.1959 to 9.9.1970, the petitioner had sold several plots of lands to eleven persons by registered sale deed. The petitioner was directed to file the sale deeds so that proper steps could be taken in this regard. It, however, appears that the petitioner did not file any sale deed to substantiate his claim. After considering this aspect, the objections of the petitioner were rejected on 15.1.1996. It may be noted here that at this stage the Additional Collector has not taken any steps to issue notice to the purchasers who would obviously be in possession of the sale deeds. It is well settled that once a sale deed is executed, the original is always with the vendee. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the sale deed could not be filed because the documents were executed by his father Laxmi Narayan Singh and as such the petitioner could not get a copy of the sale deed although he had disclosed the names of vendees, the plot and area of land sold to each of the vendees, as also the date of execution / registration of the sale deed in his objection application under section 5(1)(iii). With regard to the sale executed before 1959 the Additional Collector has not passed any order and has not consider the prayer on behalf of the petitioner that these lands should be exempted. Other 3 objections have been raised with respect to the classification of lands etc. The objections were rejected without any enquiry with respect to the classification of land or the factum of alienation of lands. The petitioner again filed an objection under section 10(3) of the Act against the draft statement published on 22.9.1997 / 21.1.1998. The objection of the petitioner was rejected by order, dated 15.1.1996 on the ground that the objections had earlier been rejected. The manner in which the application has been rejected can hardly be justified. It was incumbent upon the authorities to examine the objection under section 10(3) of the Act. In the said objection the petitioner has given details with respect to the lands which he had sold before 22.10.1959. Schedule II are the list of lands which the petitioner sold between 22.10.1952 and before 9.9.1970. Schedule III are the lands which he has sold after 9.9.1970, whereas Schedule IV contains the lands which were in possession of the petitioner. Schedule V contains the lands of two different villages which are in possession of the petitioner. In this manner the land holder has set out the entire details regarding his lands. Once the authorities have details before them, it is incumbent upon them to conduct an enquiry to find out if the sale deeds executed after 22.10.1959 were executed with intention to defeat the provisions of the Act. Obviously this was not done at either the stage of section 5(1)(iii) or at the stage of section 10(3) of the Act. 4 Learned counsel points out that the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted would also be apparent on examination of Annexure 9 which is the gazette notification under section 15(1) of the Act. Lands appertaining to Khata no. 41, plot no. 1358 measuring 1.21 decimals has been declared to be surplus, whereas in the notification issued under section 11(1) of the act at page 120 of the writ petition, with respect to the same plot of land i.e. 1358 measuring 1.62 decimals has been declared to be surplus. This court on considering the well settled law on this issue comes to the conclusion that despite the fact that details have been provided by the petitioner regarding the name of the vendees in whose favour the petitioner’s ancestors have sold the land, no steps were taken by the Collector to make an enquiry to find out whether the sale deeds were in fact executed to defeat the provisions of the Act. With regard to the lands transferred prior to 22.10.1959 the Additional Collector ought to have exempted those lands from the land ceiling proceeding. In the facts aforesaid this court has no option but to quash Annexure 9 issued under section 15(1) of the Act and Annexure 11/1, dated 27.1.2001 and remit the matter back to the Additional Collector, East Champaran for reconsideration on two issues, first with respect to exemption of lands sold prior to 22.10.1959 and secondly with respect to enquiry to be held after notice to the petitioner and the purchasers-vendee with respect to the sale deeds executed between 22.10.1959 and 5 1970. I may clarify here that notice to the purchasers vendees of the petitioners is essential as it would avoid further litigation, as this court finds that in several cases purchasers move this court for reopening the proceedings under section 45B of the Act. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the Additional Collector, East Champaran within two months from the date of its receipt failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed. This writ petition is, thus, allowed. Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)