IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11157 of 2010 1) Om Prakash Pandey, son of Gouri Shankar Pandey, 2) Jata Shankar Pandey, son of Chandradeo Pandey, village Rampur, PS Jagapatti, District West Champaran – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. 3) The Additional Collector. 4) The Circle Officer, Jogapatti, West Champaran. 5) Dharm Nath Prasad, son of Baijnath Prasad, village Puraina, PS Jogapatti, Dist. West Champaran – Respondents. 4 13.9.2010 This writ petition has been filed challenging the order, dated 30.10.2009 contained in Annexure 7 passed by the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah. A ceiling proceeding was initiated against Dharmnath Prasad, son of Baijnath Prasad by which lands of Khata no. 85, plot no. 611measuring 84 decimals situated in village Bahelia under Jogapatti belonging to Parasnath Prasad was clubbed with the land of Dharmnath Prasad and declared to be surplus. The petitioners came to this court against the said order declaring the aforesaid lands to be surplus lands of Dharmnath Prasad. This court gave liberty to the petitioners to file an application under section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act. Accordingly the petitioners filed an application before the State Government, which was allowed on 11.1.2007 on the ground that no enquiry was held to ascertain whether the lands in question belonged to the land holder in Ceiling Proceeding No. 10/1973-74. The Collector while deciding the issues has issued 2 notice to Dharmnath Prasad who is said to have given statement that he has no concern with the lands in question. The facts are that Partition Title Suit No. 123/1959 was filed which was disposed of by a compromise decree. On perusal of the decree it would appear that Baijnath Prasad had two wives. Dharmnath Prasad was the son of the second wife, whereas Parasnath Prasad was son of the first wife and accordingly the lands in question i.e. Khata no. 85, plot no. 611 were given in the share of Parasnath Prasad which is clear in the compromise decree. The Collector while deciding the issues had taken into consideration the enquiry report, dated 27.9.1983, which he could not have done, as it has been held that in fact enquiry report was defective, as it did not contain the details regarding the genealogical table of the family, nor description of lands allocated to different co-sharers, or other sons of Baijnath Prasad. In the opinion of this court the order of the Collector is defective, as it does not consider the compromise decree of T.S. No. 123/1959 and places reliance on report, dated 27.9.1983, which was the reason for re-opening the ceiling case.The Collector has dismissed the petitioners’ plea on the ground that the original records of ceiling case does not contain the genealogical table. In my opinion it only goes to show the manner in which enquiry was conducted. Besides this it was not very relevant for Dharmnath Prasad to give genealogical table as ceiling proceeding was with respect to the lands belonging to him. 3 In view of the aforesaid facts this court quashes the order, dated 30.10.2009 passed by the Collector and directs that he should take into consideration the various documents, such as, the decision in T.S. No. 123/1959, which indicates that the lands in question have been allocated to Parasnath Prasad in the partition suit. The sale deed executed by Parasnath Prasad in favour Abdul Rashid and Ram Pal Singh in 1980, which would also indicate that the lands were allocated to Parasnath Prasad in Partition T.S. No.123/1959. These documents are relevant for considering, whether the lands in question belongs to Dharmnath Prasad, the person against whom ceiling proceeding was initiated. Once the Collector comes to a finding that these lands do not belong to Dharmnath Prasad, it is obvious that the lands have to be exempted from the ceiling proceeding by issuing notification in that regard. The Collector may also order a fresh enquiry, if he thinks it necessary for the purpose of ascertaining or pin pointing the physical structure of the land or ascertaining the persons who are in actual possession of the land. Such enquiry must be made after noticing the petitioners. The impugned order, dated 30.10.2009 is quashed and this writ petition is allowed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)