CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8495 OF 1990 With CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 10620 OF 1997 … In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. … CWJC No. 8495 of 1990: 1(a) Ambika Devi, wife of Late Kedarnath Prasad, 1(b) Pintu Kumar, 1© Mantu Kumar, both sons of Late Kedarnath Prasad. 2. Meghnath Ram, 3. Baban Prasad, both sons of Late chhekari Prasad Gupta, 4. Kamla devi, wife of Meghnath ram, 5. Bansidhar singh, son of Late Ramnandan Singh, 6. Islam Ansari, son of Sharif Ansari, 7. Rajeshwari Singh, son of Late Mukhram Singh, all of village Tenduni, Ps Bikramganj, district Rohtas. 8. Radha Kishun Singh, son of sheojag Singh, village Mahroar, PS Mahroar, district Rohtas, at present Tenduni, Bikramganj, Rohtas. 9. Amrik singh, son of Sardar Singh, village Tenduni, PS Bikramganj, district Rohtas. 10.Ramadhar singh, son of Sri sukar Singh, village Sukhrauli, Ps Piro, district Bhojpur, at present Tenduni, Ps Bikramganj, Rohtas. 11. Krishna Bihar Prasad Sinha alias Krishna Bihari Prasad, son of Sri Koleshwar Lal, village Jamohri, Ps Dinara, dist. Rohtas. 12. Kailash Prasad, son of Late Dargahi Prasad, Mohalla Brahman Toli, Ps Sasaram, district Rohtas – petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) The Land Reforms Commissioner, Revenue Department, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Dy. Secretary, Revenue Department and Land Reforms, Bihar, Patna. 4) The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 5) The Collector, Rohtas. 6) The D.C.L.R., Bikramganj, Rohtas. 7) The circle Officer, Bikramganj, Rohtas. 8) Sri Kamal Bahadur Singh, (Maharaja of Dumraon), son of Maharaja Ram Ran Vijay Prasad Singh of Dumraon, Dist. Bhojpur. 9) Sri I.M. Thapar, son of Karamchandra Thapar, Proprietor of Mohni Sugar Mills, 5, Royal Exchange Palace, Calcutta – Respondents. CWJC No.10620 oF 1997 Sri Kamal Singh, Ex-Proprietor of Dumraon Raj Estate, son of Late Maharaja ram Ran Vijay Prasad Singh, resident of Dumraon, Ps Dumraon, Dist. Buxar – Petitioner. Vs. 1) the state of Bihar, 2) The Dy. Secretary, Revenue and Land reforms department, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 4) The Collector, Sasaram. 5) The Land Reforms Additional Collector, Bikramganj, Rohtas – respondents. … For the petitioners in CWJC No. 8495/1990: Mr. Ras Bihari Singh, Advocate. 2 For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1, GP 14 and Mrs. Archana Sinha, AC to GP 14. For respondent no.8 : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar and Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the petitioner in CWJC No. 10620/1997 : Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, Mr. Brij Mohan Kumar and Mr. Atul Kumar Pandey, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.1, G.P. 14 and Mrs. Archana Sinha, AC to GP 14. … P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN S.A. Khan,J. The petitioners have challenged the orders contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 by which the D.C.L.R. had recommended for a proceeding under section 4H of the Bihar Land Reforms Act which was affirmed by the Collector and approved by the state Government. 2. The lands belong to the erstwhile Maharaja Dumraon, petitioner of CWJC No. 10620/1997. On 3.11.1942 Maharaja Dumraon transferred some of the lands in favour of Sri Thapar, the nominee of Yuvraj, Jammu & Kashmir vide Annexure 4. The details of the lands so transferred have been mentioned in the documents concerned. By annexure 5, dated 23.6.1943 a registered indenture between the Yuvraj and Mohni Sugar Mills, was created and certain lands were transferred to Mohni Sugar Mill. The Maharaja Dumraon also executed a lease deed in favour of the sugar mill on 18.4.1986 vide annexure 6. In all the said deeds i.e. Annexures 4, 5 and 6 the lands have been specifically 3 defined along with the area which are the subject matter of the lease deeds. 3. The petitioners of CWJC No. 8495/1990 are claiming vide Annexure 9 that Mohni Sugar Mills has transferred lands in their favour. Petitioners have built their houses and are living peacefully on the lands in question. There is no dispute with respect to Annexure 4 i.e. the document, dated 3.11.1942. The state has come up with specific stand that since the lease for transfer was before the cut of date i.e. 1.1.1946, as provided under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, such lands cannot be subject matter of enquiry for the purpose of acquisition or vesting of the lands in the state of Bihar. 4. The claim of the petitioners of CWJC No. 8495/1990 is that the state by virtue of section 4(h) of the Act, the State purports to take over the possession of the lands which is the subject matter of annexure 4. It is their case that by virtue of the lease deed, dated 3.11.1942 the lands came to be in possession of Mohni Sugar Mill and as such they have valid title on the lands which have been transferred to them by Mohni Sugar Mill. 5. The case of respondent no.8 who is also the petitioner of CWJC No. 10620/1997 is that the lease in question i.e. Annexure 4 would indicate that the Maharaja Dumraon had only leased out his lands on a fixed rent and as such the lessee did not get any right to transfer the said lands in favour of the petitioners of CWJC No. 8495/101990 for any other purpose. It is the specific case of respondent no.8 that he was not noticed during 4 the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act and that the orders contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 have been passed behind his back. 6. The State, on the other hand, has come up with the pleadings that the state by virtue of the provisions of section 4(h) has the right to examine any transfer that has taken place after 1.1.1946 and having come to the conclusion that the transfer was made in violation of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act has proceeded to hold that the lands which are subject matter of the lease deed contained in annexures 5 and 6 would vest in the State of Bihar. The State has to some extent, also agreed with the stand of respondent no.8 that Mohni Sugar Mill had no authority to transfer the lands to any person as they did not by virtue of Annexure 6 acquire permanent right or title in the lands in question. 7. In reply to the contention of the parties that no notice was issued to them, the State Counsel refers to the order passed by the D.C.L.R. as contained in annexure 3, wherein he has said that despite notices both by ordinary process and registered ;post, the parties did not appear, and have not received the notice which were returned back to the office of the D.C.L.R. 8. The main contention, therefore, in the case is whether respondent no.8 had been noticed in the matter. It has specifically been stated and pleaded at paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit in CWJC No. 8495/1990 and paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 of the writ petition that the petitioner was never served notice with 5 respect to the proceedings in question. 9. The State counsel, on the other hand, refers to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the circle Officer, Bikramganj and states that this aspect of the matte has been denied by the State. It is pleaded that the impugned order indicates that notices were served. In the affidavit of the State it has not been mentioned, that the State had derived the knowledge of the facts that notice was validly served on respondent no.8 Kamal Bahadur Singh in the proceeding under section 4(h) of the act from the records, rather it is stated that the statement is based on knowledge, which is not a proper manner to deny such a vital fact, as non service of notice, as it violates the principles of natural justice, non compliance of which, vitiates the entire proceeding. In view of the pleadings of the state and respondent no.8, it is difficult for this court to conclude and hold that in fact there was a valid service of notice on Kamal Bahadur singh. 10. Respondent no. 8 is the land holder of the lands in question and, therefore, he certainly entitled to be heard in the matter to protect his interest in the land s in question. On behalf of respondent no.8 several issues have been raised in the writ petition, which this court is not answering in view of the fact that the matter has to be heard by the concerned authority who would be in a position to peruse the documents and decide the right of the parties in whose favour the lands have been transferred. 11. I find that in this case, Mohni Sugar Mill has not entered appearance either before the D.C.L.R. or even before this 6 court to support the stand of the petitioners of CWJC No. 8495/1990 or for that matter respondent no.8. as such this court does not think it proper to grant any further indulgence to Mohni Sugar Mill. 12. The petitioners of CWJC No. 8459/1990 have at all stages been challenging the fact that notice was issued to them. Therefore, all those persons who claim that they have been transferred the lands by Mohni Sugar Mill may appear before the D.C.L.R. if they so desire and file their written arguments and place their case. 13. These writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the petitioners of both the writ petitions to produce a copy of this order before the D.C.L.R., Bikramganj, Rohtas district within six weeks on its receipt. The D.C.L.R. will fix a date for the parties to appear. No fresh notice is required to be given to the petitioners in the case. Patna High court, September 7, 2010, NAFR / haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)