CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 8668 OF 1991 ***** ( In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ) ****** HEERA DEVI, WIFE OF SHRI LALLAN MISSIR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAKHAN DIHRA, POLICE STATION DUMRAON, DISTRICT BHOJPUR ………………………..…………………………………………….……...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BUXAR, ARRAH …………………………………………………..…………………….RESPONDENTS ******************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN O R D E R Sheema Ali Khan, J. This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 30.03.1991 passed by the Additional member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Ceiling Revision Case No. 229 of 1989 and part of the order dated 29.04.1989 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur in Ceiling Appeal Nos. 08 and 10 of 1988. This matter relates to grant of units in favour of the two daughters of Ram Kumar Dubey, namely, Rajniti Devi and Heera Devi, who were gifted 9.58 acres and 5.56 acres of land by their father on 29.07.1970 and 04.07.1969 respectively. The claim of the aforesaid two daughters was initially rejected by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 2 17.06.1976. The Additional Collector remanded the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer to investigate the claim of the aforesaid two ladies by order dated 22.10.1976. The Circle Officer conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 04.02.1977. The Sub Divisional Officer affirmed his earlier order concluding that the petitioner Heera Devi is not entitled to an additional unit. The appeal and the revision were likewise dismissed. The land holder, his wife, Heera Devi and Rajniti Devi filed CWJC No. 1389 of 1979. The Court rejected the claim of his wife for grant of an extra unit but has considered the case of the two daughters of Ram Kumar Dubey. This Court in its order dated 27.09.1984 noticed that the ceiling authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioners 3 and 4 on four grounds :- (i) That the concerned persons had not got their names mutated in the revenue records; (ii) the receipts in respect of the lands were being issued in the name of petitioner no. 1; (iii) the gift is said to have been made in the year 1956 but the petitioners 3 and 4 (the daughters) were not in actual possession & (iv) the records of right has not been prepared in the names of the two daughters. While placing their cases, petitioners 3 and 4 in the earlier writ application, brought on record the enquiry report of the 3 Circle officer, which indicates that petitioner no. 3 was in actual possession of the lands gifted to her and she was getting ‘marfati’ receipts after payment of rent. Similarly, the enquiry report indicates that petitioner no. 4 was in possession of the lands gifted to her and she was appropriating the usufructs thereof and getting ‘marfati’ receipts and she had no connection with the lands of petitioner no. 1 i.e. Ram Kumar Dubey. A supplementary affidavit was filed in the earlier writ application, in which it is stated that the name of Ram Kumar Dubey was initially entered during the consolidation proceedings, however, the daughters had applied for getting a chak prepared in their names on the basis of the aforesaid deeds of gift. After recording all these facts, this Court remanded the matter to the Collector, Bhojpur for reconsideration, which has led to the passing of the impugned orders. On perusal of the impugned order of the Collector, Bhojpur dated 29.04.1989, this Court finds that the case of the two daughters with respect to the deeds of gift has been factually changed by the Collector. He has recorded that Heera Devi was married in the year 1962 and the deed of gift was executed in the year 1970. It has also been similarly held that the deed of gift with respect to Rajniti Devi was also executed much after her marriage. 4 Again, the Collector has referred to the records of revisional survey operation, which has started in the year 1958-59 to hold that these petitioners had not got their names mutated in the municipal survey records. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it appeared to the Collector that the said deeds of gift executed by Ram Kumar Dubey in favour of his two daughters have been made to defeat the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1962. The Collector has further rejected the documents filed on behalf of the daughters with respect to the consolidation proceedings, on the ground that they were prepared as an afterthought. Strangely enough, it seems that the Collector has not gone through the entire orders of this Court and has only gone through the concluding portion and thereafter come to the findings which are factually contrary to the facts as recorded in the order of this Court dated 27.10.1984. Not only has the Collector recorded the facts contrary to the orders of this Court but has also not even bothered to consider the enquiry report which is essential under Section 5 (1) (3) of the Ceiling Act, which has been enacted to determine whether the transactions/transfers made after 22.10.1959 are genuine or are benami transactions made to defeat the provisions of the Ceiling Act. 5 I, therefore, find that the order of the Collector has to be quashed and the matter is remanded again to the Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah to consider the case of the petitioner with respect to the deeds of gift executed in her favour with a view to determine, whether the deeds of gift executed by Ram Kumar Dubey were genuine documents and under the provisions of the Ceiling Act. While doing so, I may add a word of caution, which is that the Collector may peruse the orders of this Court dated 27.10.1984 and the enquiry report which forms basis of the order issued by this Court. Accordingly, the orders impugned are set aside. This writ application is thus allowed. ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. ) PATNA HIGH COURT DATED, THE 16th OCTOBER, 2010 N.A.F.R./ANAND