CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.2931 OF 1994 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ------- RANA PRATAP SINGH, son of late Chhedi Prasad Singh, resident of Villgae – Dumra, Police Station – Bhawanipur, District – Purnia --------------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, Madhepura. 4. The Additional Collector, Madhepura. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer at Uda Kishunganj. 6. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms at Uda Kishunganj. 7. The Anchal Adhikari at Alam Nagar Anchal, Police Station- Alamnagar, District – Madhepura. 8. The Anchal Adhikari at Kishunganj, Police Station – Kishunganj, District – Madhepura. 9. The Anchal Adhikari at Bhawanipur Anchal, Police Station – Bhawanipur, District – Purnia ------------- Respondents For the petitioner : M/s. Arun Pd. Ambastha & Ravindra Kumar Choudhary. For the State : None ******** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ****** A K Tripathi, J Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.6.1987 contained in Annexure-4 which was passed by respondent no.4 in Land Ceiling Case No. 449 of 1976 / 52 of 1982 and the consequential order thereafter passed in appeal contained in Annexure-5 dated 17.8.1991 as well as the revisional order dated 8.11.1993 contained in Annexure-6 and the final notification of acquisition of land vide notification No. 650 of 1991 dated 4.10.1991 - 2 - contained in Annexure-7. 2. The factual details of the case need not be delved into detail except for the fact that based on a report of the Anchaladhikari land ceiling proceeding in question came to be initiated. The Additional Collector, Madhepura came to pass the impugned order contained in Annexure-4 which is said to be exparte order and that too without publication of the draft statement with regard to the land in question, sought to be declared surplus, in the district gazette which is a mandatory requirement under section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 19161 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. Short precise submission on behalf of the petitioner is that in absence of the publication of draft statement in the district gazette and the non-service of the same upon the petitioner by itself goes to the root of the matter and if that is so, then not only the order passed in Annexure-4 but all subsequent orders in this regard have to be set aside including the final notification. Counsel for the petitioner has not only drawn the attention of the Court to the provision of the Act in section 10(2) but has also relied on a Division Bench decision in this regard in the case of Akhileshwar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar and others, 1993 (2) PLJR 119 where emphasis has been placed on paragraph 19 of the decision. Counsel submits that it is not in dispute that after the gazette publication as required under section 10(2) of the Act, a copy of the gazette has to be served on the land holder under registered post with acknowledgement due. - 3 - 4. Since Gazette notification itself was never made and only draft for publication as per annexure-3 was made, therefore all the proceedings taken in absence of the above mandatory provision becomes an invalid exercise. It is urged that the stand taken before this Court was also asserted before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the part of the order contained in Annexure-6 where discussion in this regard has been made. The discussion is in para 10 of the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue has in his discussion brushed aside the contention by saying that publication in the gazette is another issue and service of the draft notification by itself is sufficient compliance in this regard. But then the stand of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue does not seem to be in conformity with the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Akhileshwar Mishra (supra). 5. Despite the writ application having remained pending for consideration for more than a decade and half there is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents denying the above facts. In that view of the matter with a categorical assertion having been made by the petitioner and these circumstantial material including annexure-6 having been pointed out to the court, there seems to be some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. The Court therefore is not willing to go into the other details of the matter but is willing to allow the writ application on this limited question that despite the settled law and - 4 - the provisions of section 10(2) of the Act the respondents have committed the breach of procedure and mandate and in that view of the matter the orders contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 deserve to be interfered with and the same are quashed as a consequence thereof the notification no. 650/91 dated 4.10.91 contained in Annexure-7 is also quashed and the writ application is allowed. 6. The respondent authorities have freedom to take appropriate action in conformity with the law by following the procedure laid down in this regard afresh. 7. Since the writ application has remained pending for long period of time any recent developments on fact may also be urged by the petitioner as and when the occasion arises. 8. The writ application is allowed but without any cost. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Patna High Court: The 10th November, 2008. R K Pathak (NAFR)