CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1334 OF 2000 1. MD.GHAYASUDDIN 2. MD. MOJIBUR RAHMAN. 3. MD. MUKHTAR. 4. ABDUL WAHAB, ALL SONS OF LATE ALIMUDDIN. 5. AFTAB ALAM. 6. MD. ARIF. 7. MD. ATIQUR RAHMAN, ALL SONS OF LATE KALIMUDDIN. 8. NAYEEMUDDIN, SON OF LATE AZIMUDDIN. 9. SAMIRUDDIN. BOTH SONS OF LATE MD. AAMIL. 10. NURUDDIN. 11. MURTAZA. 12. SK. ABDUL BARI. 13. ABDUL QUDDUS SONS OF LATE SALIMUDDIN. 14. MAULVI MD. KAMIL. SON OF LATE HAJI AZIZULLAH. ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- SALAHPUR, MAHESHPUR, POLICE STATION- FALKA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR :-- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (LAND CEILING) KATIHAR. 4. SULTANA, WIFE OF SK. HABIB, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SALAHPUR MAHESHPUR, DISTRICT- KATIHAR :---- RESPONDENTS. with CWJC No.2523 oF 2000 1. BIBI RAUFA KHATOON WIDOW OF LATE RUKNUDDIN AHMAD. 2. NEJIBUDDIN AHMAD, SON OF LATE RUKNUDDIN AHMAD. 3. MUSHTARI KHATOON. 4. MOJUBUNNISA, WIDOW OF LATE ZEYAUDDIN AHMAD. 5. BAHAUDDIN AHMAD. 6. SABAUDDIN AHMAD. 7. BABUDDIN AHMAD. 8. ASHILUDDINAHMAD 9. FALUDDIN AHMAD. 10. AKILUDDIN AHMAD ALL MAJOR SONS OF LATE ZEYAUDDIN AHMAD. 11. AMIDUDDIN AHMAD. 12. ZAIMUDDIN AHMAD. 13. MAKINUDDIN AHMAD, MINOR SONS OF LATE ZEYAUDDIN AHMAD, REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MUSHTARI KHATOON, PETITIONER NO.3. 14. MOINUDDIN AHMAD, SON OF LATE ALAUDDIN AHMAD, ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE- SALEHPUR, MAHESHPUR, POLICE STATION- FALKA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR :--- PETITIONERS. - 2 - Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. COLLECTOR, KATIHAR. 3. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR (LAND CEILING) KATIHAR. 4. BIBI SULTANA, WIFE OF MD. HABIB, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SALEHPUR, POLICE STATION- FALKA, DISTRICT- KATIHAR :---- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For The Petitioners : Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Senior Advocate. For The State :Mr. R.C.Thakur, S.C.-4 (Ceiling) P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.C.Thakur, S.C.-4 (Ceiling) for the State. 2. Petitioners in both the writ applications are aggrieved by the notification published by the Collector, Katihar dated 30.11.1999, Annexure-1, whereunder the lands of the petitioners have been acquired as surplus land of Bibi Sultana, wife of Sheikh Habib, Respondent No. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C.No. 2523 of 2000 that Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the heirs of Ruknuddin Ahmad, Petitioner Nos. 3 to 13 are the - 3 - heirs of Zeyauddin Ahmad and Petitioner No. 14 is Moinuddin Ahmad against whom ceiling case bearing no. 103/1973-74, 98/1973-74 and 39/1976-77 respectively was initiated. Subject matter of the aforesaid ceiling case is 76.73 acres of land bearing Revisional Survey Khata Nos. 40, 41, 45 to 51 and 53 of Village- Salehpur, P.S. Falka, District- Katihar. The original land-holder was Alauddin Ahmad who died leaving behind Ruknuddin Ahmad, Zeyauddin Ahmad and Moinuddin Ahmad against whom the aforesaid three land ceiling cases were initiated. The land holders filed their objections which was considered by the Collector under the Act under orders dated 20.8.1991, 22.8.1991 and 23.8.1991. As the landholders were aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders they preferred appeal nos. 444, 445, 446/1991-92 which was also dismissed and thereafter the landholders filed Revision Case Nos. 261, 262, 263/1992 which was allowed by the Board - 4 - of Revenue under orders dated 31.3.1995 and the matter was remanded to the appellate court for fresh consideration. During the pendency of the appeal after remand of the matter by the Board of Revenue the ceiling authorities published Gazette notification dated 30.11.1999, Annexure-1 acquiring the lands of the petitioners as surplus land of Bibi Sultana, wife of Sheikh Habib, Respondent No. 4 in Ceiling Case No. 96/1973-74 as according to the authorities Bibi Sultana was earlier married to Nuruddin Ahmad, the 4th son of Alauddin Ahmad who died after the death of his father Alauddin Ahmad and Bibi Sultana succeeded to the estate of Nuruddin Ahmad and his father Alauddin Ahmad and the entire land of the original landholder Alauddin became surplus of Bibi Sultana in Ceiling Case No. 96/1973-74. Lands of petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 1334 of 2000 was also included as surplus of Bibi Sultana although petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 1334 of 2000 had no connection either with Alauddin Ahmad or with his - 5 - four sons or with Bibi Sultana or her second husband Sheikh Habib which is evident from Annexure-2, the revisional survey Khatiyan of the lands claimed by the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 1334 of 2000 details of which have also been incorporated in Paragraph-4 of the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute the fact that Board of Revenue under orders dated 31.3.1995 remanded the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration and while the matter remained so pending before the appellate authority the Gazette notification dated 30.11.1999, Annexure-1 was published in connection with Ceiling Case No. 96/1973-74 initiated against Bibi Sultana, Respondent No. 4 in which the lands of the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 2523 of 2000 has been included along with the lands of the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1334 of 2000. Learned counsel for the State, however, submitted that original landholder Alauddin Ahmad had four sons, namely, Ruknuddin - 6 - Ahmad, Zeyauddin Ahmad, Moinuddin Ahmad and Nuruddin Ahmad and Bibi Sultana being the widow of Nuruddin Ahmad will succeed to his estate and the lands of the share of Nuruddin Ahmad which is subject matter of Ceiling Case Nos. 103/1973-74, 98/73-74 and 39/1976-77 shall have to be included in the Land Ceiling Case No. 96/1973-74 as she having succeeded to the estate of her first husband Nuruddin Ahmad, the lands of his share shall have to be incorporated in the ceiling proceeding initiated against her i.e. Ceiling Case No. 96/1973-74. 4. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Nuruddin Ahmad predeceased his father and his widow Bibi Sultana is not entitled to inherit the properties of Alauddin Ahmad as she has married Sheikh Habib and the lands of the original landholder Alauddin Ahmad shall remain with the three surviving sons of Alauddin Ahmad and their heirs, the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 2523 of 2000. - 7 - 5. Having heard counsel for the petitioners and the State it is evident that after remand of the matter by the Board of Revenue under orders dated 31.3.1995 during the pendency of the appeal bearing nos. 444, 445, 446/1991-92 the subject matter of those appeals was acquired as surplus of Bibi Sultana under Gazette notification dated 30.11.1999, Annexure-1 which is absolutely arbitrary and, accordingly, the said Gazette notification dated 30.11.1999, Annexure-1 in the two writ application is set aside with direction to the appellate authority to consider and dispose of Ceiling Appeal Nos. 444, 445, 446/1991-92 after hearing the petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 2523 of 2000 and Bibi Sultana, Respondent No. 4. While deciding the appeal the appellate authority shall also decide the status of Bibi Sultana including the fact whether she is the widow of Nuruddin Ahmad and if she is widow of Nuruddin Ahmad whether Nuruddin Ahmad predeceased his father Alauddin Ahmad and in the - 8 - light of the findings arrived at on the aforesaid issues the three ceiling case bearing nos. 444, 445, 446/1991-92 be disposed of in the light of the remand order dated 31.3.1995. The authorities will also verify whether petitioners of C.W.J.C.No. 1334 of 2000 had any connection with Alauddin Ahmad and his four sons as also Bibi Sultana and if the authorities conclude that the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 1334 of 2000 had no connection with the aforesaid persons then their lands not only be excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 2523 of 2000 but also from ceiling proceeding initiated against Bibi Sultana i.e. 96/1973-74. In compliance of my order the appellate authority i.e. Collector of the District, Katihar shall record his findings as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the appellate authority. After disposal of the aforesaid appeal if the authorities conclude that - 9 - petitioners had no surplus land at their end then the authorities will cancel the purcha which they have given to the landless persons declaring the lands in- question as surplus of Bibi Sultana. 6. The writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. The Patna High Court The 11th day of May, 2010 P.K.P./N.A.F.R. (V.N.Sinha,J.)