CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.6432 OF 1994 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. --------- TARA CHAND SAH S/O LATE RAM JANKI SAH,R/O VILLAGE BISHANPUR AADHAR, PS. SONBARSA,DISTT—SITAMARHI LAND HOLDER ----- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI------RESPONDENTS For The Petitioner : MR.T.N. MAITIN, & MR.RAMADHAR SINGH,ADVOCATES For The Respondent :MR. A.K.PANDEY,JC TO SCII(CEILING) ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI A.K.Tripathi,J Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 21.3.1994 passed by the court of Additional Collector, Sitamarhi under the purported exercise of power under section 45 B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner possessed 38.94 acres of land in Sonbarsa Block in the District of Sitamarhi. During the life time of the father the name of petitioner was recorded in the revenue record showing his name to be raiyat in his own right. Father of the petitioner passed way on 17.7.1970 and the mother died in the year, 1975. Thereafter a partition was held within the family and 1/3rd share was allotted to the sister of the petitioner. Later on during consolidation operation the possession of the land by the sister was found to be true and her name was recorded with regard - 2 - to 13.04 acres. In the year 1976 a proceeding under the Ceiling Act was initiated and the designated authority after considering the factual position with regard to the area of the land possessed by the petitioner and his sister found that the land in question did not exceed the ceiling area. By reasoned order therefore dated 18.9.1981 the matter was closed and dropped. It is stated that thereafter the State authority neither filed any appeal or any revision against the order in question. After almost ten years a notice contained in annexure-2 is issued to the petitioner. One of the grounds mentioned for reopening is that the sister of the petitioner has been wrongly given a unit to which she is not entitled to. Based on this notice the impugned order contained in annexure-3 dated 21.3.1994 has come to be passed which is under challenge in the present writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed submission to make with regard to exercise of power under section 45 B of the Ceiling Act. He submits that in light of many a decisions of this Court including a decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Praveen Shanker Singh & Ors. vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1987 PLJR 154, the matter could not be allowed to be unsettled after such a long period of time, more so on the same question which has already been decided by the competent authority way back in the year, 1981. The power under section 45 B of the Act is not to be exercised because anther view is possible on the opinion rendered - 3 - by the competent authority. There is no new material which was in possession of the Collector or such circumstance which could justify invoking section 45 B of the Act. The power under section 45 B of the Act is not for rewriting orders according to the wisdom of the Collector but has been provided for a limited purpose as envisaged under the Act. The Court has perused the notice contained in annexure-2 as well as the impugned order contained in annexure- 3. The issue for which the notice has been issued has been well considered by learned DCLR and the position has been clearly laid down in his order contained in annexure-1. The entitlement of the sister in the given background to claim the land in her own right has been discussed in the given background of the partition much earlier. In that view of the matter, reopening the ceiling case on this issue by issuing the notice seems to be misplaced and is in teeth of the pronouncement of the Full Bench judgment. In view of the above both the notice contained in annexure-2 dated 24.11.1990 as well as the impugned order contained in annexure-3 dated 21.3.1994 stands quashed. This writ application is allowed. Any consequential action taken thereafter will be subject to the order which has been rendered in this case. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 11th November, 2008 NAFR/RPS/Sr.Secy. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)