IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.1481 OF 2003 GAYANA NAND CHAUDHARY, SON OF LATE SOBHA NAND CHAUDHARY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NEHARA, POLICE STATION MANIGACHHI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA ……………………………………PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, DARBHANGA 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (CEILING), DARBHANGA 4. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, DARBHANGA 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, MANIGACHHI, DARBHANGA 6. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BENIPUR, DARBHANGA 7. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, SINGHAIA, DARBHANGA 8. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, BIRAUL, DARBHANGA …………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ********* 8 23/08/2010 The petitioner has filed this writ application for issuing a writ of mandamus to the respondent-State to restrain them from distributing the possession of the lands of Schedule-1 of Annexure-2 to the writ application, which are claimed by the petitioner along with other lands in the Ceiling Case No. 70 of 1984-85. The facts are that the ceiling proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and after giving 7 units to the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner did not possess any surplus lands. However, it is the case of the petitioner that no notification under Section 11 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was ever issued by the authorities. All of a sudden, in the year 1989, 56.08 acres of lands of the petitioner was declared to be surplus and by letter no. 60, 2 dated 27.03.1989, the Circle Officer, Benipur was ordered to distribute the said surplus lands. The petitioner rushed to this Court and filed a writ application being CWJC No. 3773 of 1989, in which he prayed that the orders dated 10.02.1986, 15.06.1987, 17.02.1989 and 27.03.1989 should be quashed with respect to Ceiling Case No. 70 of 1984-85. By the aforesaid orders, the ceiling case of the petitioner was reopened and 56.08 acres of lands were declared to be surplus. This Court, vide order dated 12th November, 1998, has come to the conclusion that the ceiling proceeding was reopened under Section 45 B of the Act behind the back of the petitioner. The Court also came to the conclusion that in fact the authorities had not issued final notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act and thereby came to the conclusion that the “ceiling proceeding never reached its finality”. Under the circumstances, the Court set aside the orders reopening the ceiling case and the consequential notification as contained in Annexure-3 and remitted the matter back to the authorities “for conclusion of the proceeding in terms with order dated 21st January, 1984 by issuance of notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act. However, this order will not stand in the way of the Respondents to prefer an appeal against the original order or to reopen the matter in accordance with law”. After the order of this Court, all of a sudden the 3 petitioner came to know that his lands are to be distributed by the respondent-State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State where the State has brought on record the notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act purported to have been issued on 01.03.1984. This notification relates to the village Rasalpur, whereas the petitioner claims that he does not have any land in the village Rasalpur. It is surprising that the Gazette Notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act, has been produced before this Court, whereas it was the specific stand of the State in the earlier writ application, which had been noted by this Court, and the order in fact, is based on the presumption that there was no notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act. This Court has difficulty in believing that this notification was actually published in the newspaper in view of the fact that the order sheet produced by the petitioner shows that on 21.01.1984, the Additional Collector had ordered that the notification should be published under Section 11 (1) of the Act. The next date fixed was 31.01.1984. However, between 31.01.1984 and 10.02.1986, no order has been recorded which would indicate that in fact the notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act was never published, and a copy of the notification was not served on the petitioner as is required under Section 11 (1) of the Act. To this Court, it 4 is, therefore, abundantly clear that respondent-State is deliberately trying to mislead this Court and is giving the facts which are contrary to the records and contrary to the findings of this Court vide Annexure-1. This Court had passed an order on 11.02.2003 granting status quo as it existed on 11.02.2003 with respect to Schedule-1 lands of Annexure-2 of the writ application. A statement has been made in the counter affidavit in which it is said that “it will also not be out of place to mention that it is also not correct that 18.32 acres of land out of the lands involved in the ceiling case was distributed. As a matter of fact, land settlement purcha was distributed amongst 19 landless beneficiaries with regard to certain Gair Mazarua Khas Lands which were never involved in the present land ceiling case”. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand of the State is misleading in view of the fact that their own report at Annexure-B dated 10.05.2003 which indicates that certain lands belonging to the petitioner with respect to village Pokhram, Mohammadpur Bouari and Kataiya have been concealed by the petitioner in the ceiling proceeding. These lands are described as BELAGAAN, BAKASTE, GAIR MAZARUA KHAS lands. The State claims that since the lands are GAIR MAZRUA LAGAAN, they are being distributed, whereas, the petitioner claims that 5 according to the stand taken in Annexure-B, these lands belong to the petitioner. The petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Collector by filing a detailed application, regarding the title of the petitioner over the lands at village Pokhram, Mohammadpur Bouari, and kataiya, which are being distributed by the Collector by grant of purchas. The Collector should stay his hands in distributing the lands, once the application has been filed. If the Collector finds that the petitioner has title over the lands in question, the lands distributed to the purcha-holders will have to restored to the petitioner, as the State cannot distribute or settle lands without following the procedure as laid down under the law. It is thus directed that the respondent-State shall not distribute the lands of the petitioner as mentioned in Schedule-1 of Annexure-2 to the writ application filed before Additional Collector, Darbhanga until proper procedures are followed under the Act. In the result, this application is allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )