CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3217 OF 1992 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) 1. MAHARANI DURGESHWARI SAHI, wife of Late Maharaja Bahadur Gopeshwar Prasad Sahi 2. Maharaj Kumar Mrigendra Pratap Sahi, s/o Late Maharaja Bahadur Gopeshwar Prasad Sahi, all are residents of Hathwa House, Near Gandhi Maidan, PS Gandhi Maidan, Town and District Patna 3. Gopal Mandir installed at Hathwa, District Gopalganj through Shebait Maharani Durgeshwari Sahi 4. Kshetra installed at Varanasi through Shri M P Sahi 5. Shivalaya, installed at Varanasi, through Shebait Shri M P Sahi 6. Mahalaxmiji, Shri Krishnaji, and Radhikaji installed at Ram Bhawan, Hathwa House, PS Gandhi Maidan, District Patna through Shebait Maharani Durgeshwari Sahi 7. M/s Hthwa Vanaspati Ltd. Through the Senior Executive Sri M K Pandita, Ganga Kothi, Anta Ghat, PO Bankipore, Distt. Patna Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Hon’ble Member, Boad of Revenue, Bihar at Patna 3. Commissioner, Saran Division at Chapra 4. Collector, Gopalganj 5. Addl. Collector, Gopalganj 6. Maharaj Kumar Brajeshwar Prasad Sahi 7. Bhagwan Sri Sitaram Lakshmanji 8. Batuk Prasad Narain Singh 9. Sanjay Singh 10. Jayanti Devi 11. Harischandra Pd. Singh 12. Urmila Devi 13. Ashok kumar 14. Kiran Singh 15. Dhrub Shankar Pd. Narain Singh 16. Shashi Devi 17. Madhu Kumari 18. Bidya Devi 19. Krishna Devi 20. Radha Kumari 21. Girija Devi 22. Sidharth Singh 23. Samarath Singh 24. Sachidaand Pd. Singh 25. Mithilesh Singh 26. Lakshmi Singh 27. Balmiki Prasad Singh 28. Vimla Singh 29. Kamal Nain Prasad Singh 30. Pratima Singh ……….. Respondents with CWJC No.3647 of 1992 SHRUB SHANKAR PD.NARAIN SINGH …………Petitioner Versus STATE & Others………Respondents with CWJC No.4011 oF 1992 MAHARAJ KR.BRAGESHWAR PD.SAHI ………Petitioner versus 2 STATE & ORS ……………..Respondents with CWJC No.3488 oF 1992 SACHCHIDANAND PD. SINGH & ORS……Petitioners Versus STATE & ORS………………………….Respondents with CWJC No.3549 oF 1992 BATUK PD.NR.SINGH…………………….Petitioners Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS………Respondents with CWJC No.4466 oF 1992 KAMAL NAIN PRASAD SINGH ………Petitioner Versus State of Bihar & Others …….. Respondents ******* For the Petitioners : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior Advocate For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha Govt. Advocate with Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, AC Kumari Amrita, Standing Counsel I (Ceiling) For Private Respondents : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh Mr. Rajendra Prasad, and Mr. Dronacharya ********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL S K Katriar & K K Mandal, J.J. This batch of writ petitions is directed against the order dated 29.7.1991, passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No.80 of 1990 (State of Bihar vs. Maharani Durgeshwari Sahi & Others), passed in purported exercise of powers under section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The revision application, in its turn, was directed against the common order dated 26.6.1990, passed by the learned Commissioner of Saran Division, Chapra, in Case No.39 of 1985-86 and analogous appeal(s). It arises out of land ceiling proceedings. CWJC No. 3217 of 1992 is at the instance of the land holders, deity, and some of the transferees. The remaining writ petitions are at the instance of the other transferees. 2. We shall draw the basic facts from CWJC No. 3217 of 1992. Land ceiling proceedings were initiated against petitioner nos. 1 and 2, and was registered as 3 Ceiling Case no.243/3 of 1973-74. Petitioner no.1 filed returns of the land held by herself/family. After following the prescribed procedure, three units were allotted to the land-holder(s). The matter ultimately reached the learned Commissioner of Saran Division at Chapra. There is no need to go into the meandering course of the litigation before the learned authorities under the Act, and before this Court. The matter was ultimately decided by the learned Commissioner by the order impugned before the Board of Revenue, whereby he substantially allowed the claim of the land-holder(s) and the transferee(s) which led to the aforesaid Revision Case No.80 of 1990, before the Board of Revenue at the instance of the State of Bihar. The learned Member has out-right rejected some of the claims which had been allowed by the learned Commissioner. In other words, the revision application of the State of Bihar has been substantially allowed by the learned Member, the order of the learned Commissioner has been set aside, and the claims for exemption have been rejected after discussing the materials on record and assigning convincing reasons. These are issues of facts, and the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would be reluctant to interfere with the same in a situation where we are convinced with the discussion in the impugned order. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in the impugned order, we uphold disallowance of such exemptions. 3. In so far as the remaining items are concerned, the learned Member has on exhaustive discussion of the materials before him come to the conclusion that the learned Commissioner did not have adequate materials to reach the conclusion which he did and has, therefore, remitted the matter to the learned Collector of the District for fresh enquiry, fresh inspection, and fresh determination. For example, he has observed as followed in paragraph -13 of the judgment:- “……. The learned Collector did not record any memorandum of local inspection in respect of his local inspection, he only stated in his impugned order that during the course of his local inspection he found confirmation of the evidence produced on behalf of the land holders that these lands were not connected with agriculture or horticulture etc. and on that ground he excluded these lands from the list of the lands of land holders. It appears that the local inspection made by the Collector of Gopalganj of the pucca structures etc. was just an eye-wash as it was not possible for the learned Collector to inspect all these structures lying in different 4 villages on the same day. The learned Collector also did not care to record any memorandum of local inspection giving details of what he saw on the ground on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that these pucca structures etc. were unconnected with agriculture or horticulture etc. Again the land holders have been changing their stand……..” In that view of the matter, we entirely agree with the decision of the learned Member to set aside the order of the learned Commissioner, and remit the same to the learned Collector for fresh adjudication. 4. We must deal with the question of limitation advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us. They have submitted in one voice that the revision application was barred by limitation. We observe from paragraph -9 of the impugned order that the learned Member discussed the issue of limitation raised by the land-holders and others before the Board of Revenue, and on application of the judicial mind and discussion of the relevant issues the condonation application has been allowed and the delay in filing the revision application was condoned. The learned Member has taken a possible view and we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 5. We must also deal with the contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners that the High Court, or at best the Board of Revenue should itself decide the matter afresh on merits. We are mindful of the legal position that an order of remand sets at naught the entire effort made till then to dispose of the lis and, therefore, such a course should be the last resort. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are convinced that the learned Member was right in remitting a few issues to the learned Collector for fresh local inspection and enquiry under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act, and in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. The matter goes back on remand to the learned Collector of the district to dispose of the matter in accordance with the detailed direction indicated in the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. It goes without saying that it will be open to the parties to bring on record fresh evidence in support of their respective cases. He should, in this connection, apart from other decisions of the Court, be also 5 guided by the following judgment of this Court:- (i) Md. Salim Uddin vs. State of Bihar [1998 (1) PLJR 38] (ii)Lakshmi Bhagat vs. State of Bihar [1998 (1) PLJR 348] ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) Patna High Court, Patna The 17th February 2010 NAFR/mrl