Letters Patent Appeal No.330 OF 1999 (Against the Judgment and Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4523 of 1989 on 14th December, 1998) DR. NITYA NAND LAL DAS & ORS. --------------------(Appellants) -Versus- THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. --------------------(Respondents) ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Pd. Ambastha Mr. Ravindra Kr. Choudhary. For the S t a t e : Mr. Smt. Nilu Agarwal, Govt. Adv. No.10. Mr. Krishna Murari Pd. J.C. to G.A. 10. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. PRASAD Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, JJ. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, a notice under Section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was issued to the Original Appellant no.1 whereupon he submitted return. This return has not been brought on record and accordingly, it is not known what claims had been put forward thereby. Be that as it may, a draft statement was prepared under Section 10 of the Act. The same was published in the Official Gazette 2 of the District and thereupon only the original Appellant no.1 filed an objection to the draft statement. It was the contention of the original Appellant no.1 in his objection that he belongs to a joint Hindu Mitakshara family and the land, being the subject matter of the draft statement, is held by such family. He contended that he along with other members of the said joint family are entitled to be treated as 11 separate families within the meaning of the Act and accordingly, having regard to the entitlement of those 11 families, there is no surplus land. It was contended that married sisters of the original Appellant no. 1, namely, the appellants no. 2 and 3, are also part of the said joint family inasmuch as their father died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The original appellant no.1, having regard to the fact that he had three major sons as on the appointed date, was considered to be entitled to represent four families, namely, the family comprising of himself, his wife and minor children and three other families comprising of his three sons, their wives and their minor children. Upon allocation of land held by the appellant no.1 amongst those four families a 3 total of 102.655 acres of land was declared as surplus. The appellant no. 1 as also the appellant nos. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal against the order passed under Section 10 of the Act dealing with the objection of the appellant no.1. The appeal having been rejected, the appellants went before the Revisional Authority and the same having been rejected, they approached the writ Court. The writ petition was rejected principally on the ground that there is nothing on record, which would suggest that the death of the father of the appellant took place after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the present appeal, it is the contention of the appellants that while informations were received from the return, they were checked in the prescribed manner, before preparation of the draft statement, by the Circle Officer in terms of the Rule 8, when he prepared the genealogical table and thereby acknowledged that the father of the appellants died in 1957. It was contended by referring to a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Dwarka Singh Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 1977 BBCJ 696, that the married daughters 4 were also entitled to inherit their father and their share is to be clubbed with the share of their husband. By referring to a subsequent Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Prasad Singh Vrs. State of Bihar, reported in 1998(2) PLJR 689, it was submitted that on the death of their father, the original appellant no.1 and his sisters namely, the appellants no.2 and 3, inherited the interest of their father in the joint family property, being the subject land, and for no reason the authorities concerned erroneously concluded that the land in question, upon the death of the father of the original appellant no.1 and his sisters, vested in the original appellant no.1. There cannot be any dispute that the Circle Officer, as appears from the certified copy of the genealogical table prepared by the Circle Officer on 31st August, 1973 in connection with Land Ceiling Case No. 56 of 1973-74, i.e. the case initiated against the original appellant no.1, reported that the father of the original appellant no.1 died in 1957. In such circumstances, the share of the deceased father of the original appellant no.1 in the land in question was inherited by the appellant no.1 and his sisters to the extent 5 of their share. The fact, however, remains that despite death of the father of the original appellant no.1, the sisters of the appellant no.1 did not take any step to claim any right in respect of their entitlement by applying for mutation or by asking for partition or by paying rent or revenue as the case may be. At least no such contention had been put forward before us. Further, from the tenor of the submissions of the appellants, as noted by this Court in the last Judgment referred to above, the appellants were aware that a married daughter’s entitlement to land is to be clubbed with the land belonging to her husband. In the appeal preferred by the original appellant no.1 and his sisters, in the revision, in the writ petition and in this appeal, it has not been stated how much land according to the sisters of the original appellant no.1 came to their share from the share of their father and how much land is held by their respective husbands. Conclusion, therefore, would be that no attempt was made by the sisters of the appellant no.1 to demonstrate before the ceiling authorities that they are entitled to retain land inherited by them from their father in addition to the land held by their husbands. On 6 the other hand, the appellant no.1 had been claiming before the authorities concerned, in the writ petition as well as before us that his sisters were entitled to be treated as two separate families or units for the purpose of adjudication whether any land is in excess of the ceiling limit. In the circumstances, there is no question of interference with the Judgment and order under appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. In the present appeal, the present appellant no.1 has filed an affidavit annexing therewith xerox-copy of a death certificate in order to establish that on 10th October, 1956 his grand-father namely, the father of the original appellant no.1 died. This certificate has been issued under the provisions contained in the Registration of Birth and death Acts, 1969 read with the Bihar Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999. The Counsel for the State has filed an affidavit and thereby has brought to our notice that the said Certificate was issued on the basis of informations supplied by the present appellant no.1. The said Certificate was obtained for 7 production before us with the sole object of bringing on record an evidence that the father of the original appellant no.1 died in 1957, since until filing of the said Certificate, the certified copy of the genealogy referred to above was not brought on record. A look at the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act read with the Bihar Rules would amply make it clear that there is no provision of recording death of a person before the register was opened and the register in terms of the directions contained in the Act could only be opened after the Act came into force and by notification the provisions of the Act were made applicable to the State of Bihar. The said certificate, therefore, is a manufactured certificate. The appellant no.1 has, therefore, committed crime punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Proceedings, therefor are required to be initiated under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. We would have done so provided the State had also initiated similar proceeding against the person who issue the said Certificate. It is surprising the State has not reported that it has taken any steps in that regard. 8 In the circumstances, by imposing cost on the appellant no.1 alone, we dismiss the appeal. Cost in the instant case shall be paid by the appellant no.1 quantified at Rs. 1000/- to the Patna High Court Legal Aid Committee within a period of three months from today. Patna High Court, 5th September, 2008, S.B.P./N.A.F.R. (Barin Ghosh, J. ) (C.M. Prasad, J.)