IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.766 OF 2010 IN (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 10222/2009) ================================================ 1. SAKAL PASWAN @ SAKAL DUSADH, S/O MOTI PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 2. MUNESHWAR PASI , S/O LATE MANBAHAL PASI, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 3. RADHESHYAM PASWAN, S/O NITHALU PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 4. BIYENDRA PASWAN, S/O SRI MOTI PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 5. MOTI PASWAN, S/O LATE SHEO BACHAN PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 6. HANSLAL RAM , S/O LATE KHEDU RAM R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 7. BHARAT RAM , S/O LATE HARGUN RAM, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 8. NITHALU PASWAN, S/O LATE BALROOP PASWAN, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 9. SHOBHANATH PASI, S/O MALAI CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 10. SHANKAR RAM, S/O INDRADEO RAM, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 11. SIYA RAM PASI, S/O LATE MOTI PASI, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 12. AMAWAS YADAV, S/O LATE GANGA YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 13. RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV, S/O LATE SHEOPUJAN SINGH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 14. INDRAMANI DEVI, W/O SHEOPUJAN SINGH YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 15. RAJ KUMAR YADAV, S/O LATE BANSROPAN YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 16- 2 RAMJEE SINGH @ RAMJEE YADAV, S/O DEO RAJ, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADOULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 17. KAILASH BIND , S/O LATE SHOBHI BIND, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 18. SHEO MURAT YADAV, S/O SHOBHA YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 19. SITA YADAV, S/O SAKAL DEEP YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 20. SAKALDEEP YADAV, S/O LATE BIRODHI YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 21. RAM CHANDRA YADAV, S/O LATE BIRODHI YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 22. YASODA DEVI, W/O CHANDRADEO SINGH R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 23. RAM ADHAR YADAV, S/O DEORAJ YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. 24. RAMRAJ YADAV, S/O LATE HARI YADAV, R/O VILLAGE- AMIYAWAR,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT- KAIMUR, BHABUA. …………. Appellant(s) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, KAIMUR AT BHABUA. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, KAIMUR AT BHABUA. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BHABHUA AT KAIMUR. 5. THE ANCHALA ADHIKARI KUDRA, BHABHUA,DISTRICT-KAIMUR. 6. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, S/O LATE JAGDISH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. 7. VIJAY NARAYAN SINGH, S/O LATE JAGDISH SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- GHARI,P.S.- KUDRA,P.O. BHADAULA, DISTRICT-KAIMUR, BHABUA. ………… Respondent(s) ================================================ Appearance: For the Appellant : Mr. SARVENDRA KUMAR VERMA Mr. ACHHAIBAR SINGH, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. KAMAL NAYAN CHOUBEY, Sr. Advocate Mr. RANG NATH PANDEY Mr. ARUN KUMAR, Advocates 3 For the State : Mr. R.C.THAKUR, SC4(Ceiling) Mr. K. THAKUR, A.C. to SC4(Ceiling) Mr. KAMAL KISHORE ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 04. 11.08.2010 This Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 30th November 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10222 of 2009. The subject matter of dispute in this litigation are parcels of lands situated in village Bhaisadih, Ghari and Amiaawar, District-Kaimur at Bhabua. The disputed lands belonged to the respondent nos. 6 and 7. The holding of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 was subject matter of Ceiling Proceedings in Ceiling Case No. 709/289 of 1975-76. By order dated 16th June 1976 made by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhabua the respondent nos. 6 and 7 were allowed to retain two units of land. The remaining land was declared surplus. The said order was confirmed on 13th August 1984 in Appeal No. 78 of 1984-85. Feeling aggrieved the respondent nos. 6 and 7 approached the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 8 January 1987, remanded the matter to the Collector, Kaimur. On remand of the case, by order dated 11th July 2008 made by the Additional Collector, Kaimur the respondent nos. 6 and 7 were allowed to retain three units of land as claimed by 4 them. It was declared that the family did not possess surplus land and the Additional Collector, Kaimur dropped the Ceiling proceedings. Accordingly the Notification was issued on 25th July 2008. Pending the aforesaid proceedings, out of the lands declared surplus, parcels of lands were settled in favour of the 24 writ petitioners. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 11th July 2008 and the Notification dated 25th July 2008, the respondent nos. 6 and 7 are entitled to restoration of possession of the lands earlier declared to be surplus and taken over by the State Government. The District Collector, therefore, issued notice of eviction against the writ petitioners. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioners approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10222 of 2009. By impugned judgment and order the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the writ petitioners had no vested right in the parcels of the land settled in their name. The respondent nos. 6 and 7 having succeeded in the Land Ceiling Proceedings were entitled to restoration of possession of the surplus land. Consequently, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. However, considering the long tenure of possession of the writ petitioners the learned Single Judge was pleased to direct the State Government; “To provide an alternative settlement to the petitioners at the earliest preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 5 The authorities were also directed to allow three months’ time to the writ petitioners to surrender the red cards and to vacate the premises. Like directions were issued to the writ petitioners to surrender their red cards and to vacate the premises after the expiry of the period mentioned in the order without any pre-condition. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioners have preferred the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Verma appears for the appellants. He has submitted that though there was specific direction to the State Government to provide alternative land to the writ petitioners the same has not yet been done. He has submitted that the writ petitioners should not be evicted and the land in question should not be allowed to be resumed by the respondent nos. 6 and 7 until the writ petitioners are allotted the alternative settlements as directed. He has also complained that till this date the State Government has not taken any action in this direction. At the outset, we may mention that pending this Appeal, by order dated 27th April 2010 made on interlocutory application no. 4076 of 2010, the operation of the impugned order was stayed by this Court. In view of the order of stay obtained by the appellants, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellants to complain that the State has not taken steps to comply with the direction. Learned advocate Mr. R.C. Thakur appears for the 6 State Government. He has submitted that though notice in this regard was issued, none of the appellants appeared before the District Collector. As to the right of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 to resume the surplus land on their succeeding in the Ceiling Case the matter is not res integra. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dadan Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [2008(1) P.L.J.R. (SC) 215] and of Baban Paswan and another Vs. Pratima Devi & Ors. [(2003)10 SCC 239]. Learned advocate Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey appearing for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in the matter of Ambika Ram & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Letters Patent Appeal 705 of 2008, arising from C.W.J.C. No. 10267 of 2001 decided on 10th September 2009). Mr. Choubey has also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Haricharan Chamar & Ors. Vs. Kapilmuni Ojha & Ors., [2008 (2) P.L.J.R. 495] particularly the observation made in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the judgment. This Court has held: “………Law is well settled that once the land has been declared surplus and the requisite notification in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act has been issued the lands shall vest in the State Government and remains custodia legis……...” 7 The Bench also relied upon the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi(3) and others [2006(4) SCC 1] to hold that sympathy and sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto, the party has failed to establish a legal right. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly applied the principle and has rightly directed the writ petitioners to hand over the possession of the parcels of land in question without any pre-condition. We do not find any substance in the Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)