IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17894 of 2010 1. SHYAN KUMAR SON OF RAJBALLABH NARAYAN SINHA. 2. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, SON OF BRAJBALLABH NARAYAN SINGH. Both Residents of Village-Rampur, Police Station- Colgang, District-Bhagalpur. …………….Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR. 3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, BHAGALPUR. ……………….Respondents ----------- 05 06.01.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and State. 1. Petitioners claim to be the grand sons of one Ram Sundar Mandal, against whom a land ceiling proceeding bearing L.C. Case no. 575/76 was initiated. On a consideration of entire materials, the authorities disposed of the land ceiling case and allotted 06 units to the landholder and accordingly 180 acres of Class III lands were allowed to be retained by the landholder(s). Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the authority that prior to final adjudication granting six units to the family, aforesaid Ram 2 Sundar Mandal had died on 02.05.1982. Having come to know about the death of aforesaid Ram Sundar Mandal, the authority under the Act by order dated 06.04.1984 (Annexure-2) re-opened the proceeding and after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials brought before it by a proceeding dated 11.07.1984 (Annexure-3) deleted the unit earlier granted in favour of aforesaid Ram Sundar Mandal, who had died prior to final adjudication of the land ceiling proceeding. Accordingly, the landholder (s) were allowed to hold only five units and thus 150 acres of Class III lands. Aggrieved thereby, one Bina Devi and others preferred a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. no. 7063 of 1998. It appears that Bina Devi, claimed to be the daughter of aforesaid Ram Sundar Mandal, and thus claimed her share in the property upon the death of her father. The said matter was considered by a Bench of the Court and disposed of by 3 order dated 25.11.1998 (Annexure-4). Operative portion of the order reads as under:- “Accordingly, I remit the case to the Collector, Bhagalpur, who will decide the share of Bina Devi after notice to all the landholders. The extent of share to which first petitioner-Bina Devi is entitled after death of her father late Ram Sundar Kandal, be entitled. As the matter is to be looked into afresh for the purpose of exclusion of such land and, if necessary, re- notification is to be issued, the landholders should be allowed to give fresh option for the purpose of retention of land in their favour to the extent units have already been allowed. It is made clear that if on inheritance of such share it exceeds in the aggregate of the ceiling area to which (ceiling) family of Bina Devi (petitioner) is 4 entitled, then she is required to submit a return in terms with Section 18 of the Ceiling Act. Till a decision is given in this respect, the respondents will not distribute the land in question. The impugned orders dated 31.7.84 and 4.4.98 stand modified to that extent.” 2. The matter was thereafter again taken up by the respondent Collector, Bhagalpur. In the light of order of this Court, the respondent Collector reconsidered the grievance of aforesaid Bina Devi and by an order dated 26.07.2010 (Annexure-7) allowed the same directing for exclusion of the share of aforesaid Bina Devi from the ceiling proceeding with a rider that if aforesaid Bina Devi is found holding land in excess of the permissible limit after addition of the land so allotted in her favour in the present proceeding 5 then a separate ceiling proceeding shall be initiated against her. In the said order, respondent Collector has held that the total area of land to be declared surplus in the hands of the landholder would be 49.33 3/4 acres of land already declared surplus plus 30 acres of land which was initially allotted in favour of aforesaid Ram Sundar Mandal, but subsequently deleted by order dated 11.07.1984 (Annexure-3) after deleting share of Bina Devi daughter of Ram Sundar Mandal. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aforesaid Ram Sundar Mandal had gifted certain lands falling in his unit in favour of different persons. It is the case of the petitioner that 12.36 acres and 8.22 acres of land were gifted in favour of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 (grand sons) before ordering deletion of unit of Ram Sundar Mandal and, as such, the petitioners were entitled to hold the 6 same, of course subject to the rider contained under Section 18 of the Land Ceiling Act, which reads as under:- “Restriction on future acquisition by inheritance, bequest, gift, or on alluvial action.-(1) if, after the commencement of this Act, any person, either by himself or through any other person acquires by inheritance, bequest or gift, or by alluvial action, any land which, together with the land, if any, already held by him anywhere in the State, exceeds in the aggregate the ceiling area, then, he shall, within ninety day of such acquisition by inheritance, bequest or gift, and within six month thereof, by alluvial action, submit to the Collector a return by registered post, with acknowledgment due, giving the particulars specified below and selecting the land the desires to 7 retain:- (i) the area and description of such land; (ii) the date of the acquisition; (iii)the manner of the acquisition and the particular of the documents, if any, under which such acquisition was made; (iv) name and description of the person who held the land before the acquisition; (v) total area of land held any where in the state by the person in whose favour the acquisition is made; and (vi) any other particulars which may be prescribed. (2) If he fails to submit the return and select the land within the period specified in sub-section (1), the Collector may obtain the necessary information through such agency as he thinks proper. (3) On receipt of the return prescribed in sub-section (1) or collection of information under sub- section (2) as the case may 8 be, the Collector shall after giving the land- holder a reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence and after making enquiries as he considers necessary select the land which may be retained by the land holder within his ceiling area and also determine the land which is excess of the ceiling area and which he is not entitled to retain under this Act. (4) The Collector shall then acquire the surplus land by publishing in the official Gazette a notification to the effect that such land is required for a public purpose and such publication shall be conclusive evidence of the fact stated therein for the purpose of this Act.” 4. It is thus submitted that the authority under the Act committed an illegality in not considering the case of the petitioners. 9 5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the order dated 11.07.1984 (Annexure-3) passed by the Additional Collector, attained finality as no appeal appears to have been preferred there against. Learned standing counsel submits that authorities have taken a correct view in the light of order of remand passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 7063 of 1998 (Annexure-4). The case of the writ petitioners herein were not pressed before this Court while disposing of aforesaid C.W.J.C. No. 7063/98. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. From the materials on record this much is admitted that the landholder(s) upon conclusion of land ceiling proceeding initiated against him/them, were entitled to hold only five units. No issue has been raised against the aforesaid adjudication made 10 by the authority. It appears, the daughter of original land holder (Ram Sundar Mandal) and others approached this Court with a claim that at the time of death of the landholder (Ram Sundar Mandal) he was definitely entitled to hold one unit (as on 09.09.1970). The daughter shall have a share in the property upon the death of the landholder/father. In view of this aspect of the matter the said writ petition was disposed of. So far as the writ petitioners’ claim of acquisition of land either by reason of deed of gift or otherwise subsequent to adjudication/ entitlement of grant of units to the landholder, is/are concerned no effective order can be passed at this stage as no such issue appears to have been raised before this Court when C.W.J.C. No. 7063 of 1998 was disposed of. If the petitioners’ claim acquisition of land(s) by virtue of those deeds of gifts executed by their 11 grand father Ram Sundar Mandal then they were required to file return under Section 18 of the Act. Apparently, no such return has been filed by the petitioners before the authority. In that view of the matter this Court cannot grant them any relief. 7. However, petitioners if so advised may take legal recourse as provided under the provisions of the Act. Needless to observe that if any such return is filed by the petitioners before the competent authority under the Act, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Safik ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)