CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.1617 OF 1999 In the matter of an application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India RAMAKANTA DEVI, WIFE OF UMA SHANKAR RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LEHRA, P.S. KARGAHAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS ------------------------------(Petitioner) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. THE LAND REFORM DY. COLLECTOR, ROHTAS AT SASARAM --------------------(Respondents) For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhunath Rai, Sr. Adv., Ras Bihari Thakur, Advocate For the State : Mr. O.P. Upadhayay, SC-2(Ceiling). For the Intervener : Mr. Amrendra Nr. Rai, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA V.N.Sinha, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and SC-2 (Ceiling) for the State. 2. Petitioner is the wife of Uma Shankar Rai. She has filed this writ application against the order dated 31.3.1998 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar in Rohtas Case No.73 of 1996, Annexure-1, whereunder the appellate order dated 22.8.1996 passed in Land Ceiling Case No.4 of 1996, Annexure-2 and the original order dated 27.9.1994 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in Land Ceiling Case No.96 of 1983, Annexure-3 has been affirmed and thereudner only one unit has been allowed to the father in law of the petitioner Sri Raj Mohan Rai. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from the report of the circle Officer, Kargahar bearing letter No.480 dated 4.6.1993 contained in Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit filed - 2 - on 31.8.1999, it will appear that husband of the petitioner Sri Uma Shankar Rai was adult and over 18 years of age on 9.9.1970 and without appreciating the contents of the report under the impugned orders only one unit has been allowed in favour of father in law of the petitioner Sri Raj Mohan Rai. It is further submitted that the authorities were required to have considered the contents of the report dated 4.6.1993, Annexure- 4 before refusing to grant unit for Uma Shankar Rai. The authorities having relied on the report for the purpose of holding that the lands in question are class-I land could not have rejected the report on the point of age of Sri Uma Shankar Rai without there being any better material to dispute the age of Sri Uma Shankar recorded in the report. Mmerely on the basis of ipse dixit the authorities could not have ignored the report, which has been given by the field officer after ascertaining the age of Sri Uma Shankar Rai from other villagers. 4. Having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State, I am of the view that while passing the impugned orders dated 31.3.1998, 22.8.1996 and 27.9.1994, Annexures-1, 2 and 3 the authorities have not considered the report of the Circle Officer, Kargahar dated 4.6.1993, Annexure-4. The orders impugned in the writ application suffers from vice of arbitrariness as the authorities have not chosen to consider the relevant material, which was so essential for just adjudication of the claim of the parties. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 31.3.1998, 22.8.1996 and 27.9.1994, Annexures-1, 2 and 3 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rohtas at Sasaram for fresh determination in the light of the contents of the - 3 - report of the Circle Officer, Kargahar dated 4.6.1993, Annexure-4. It is made clear that if the authorities do not wish to rely on the repot of the Circle Officer dated 4.6.1993, Annexure-4 then they must have some better cogent material to dispute the findings recorded in the report, only on the basis of mere ipse dixit the report should not be rejected. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Patna High Court Dated 13th April,2010 NAFR/Rajesh (V.N.Sinha, J)