CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3327 OF 1997 ****** In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ****** 1 (a) RASHID ANWAR, S/o Late Anwarul Haque 1(b) Jehan Ara 1(c) Hussna Ara (1(d) Quaisar Jahan 1(e) Rehana Parveen 1(f) Rizwana Parveen 1(g) Mehnaz Parveen 1(b) to 1(g) all daughters of late Anwarul Haque, resident of village- Chhawahi Taki, P.O. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. 2. Zamirul Haque, son of late Haroon Rasheed 3. Nasimul Haque, son of late Haroon Rasheed 4. Anisul Haque @ Anisul Haidar, son of late Haroon Rasheed. 5. Raujan, widow of late Haroon Rasheed. 6. Janatul, widow of late Haroon Rasheed 7. Faizenessa, daughter of late Haroon Rasheed. 8. Najnin Bano, wife of late Samiul Haque. 9. Tanwir Ahmad, son of late Samiul Haque. All resident of village- Chhawahi Taki, P.O. Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. …… Petitioners. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 3. The Additional Collector (Ceiling), Gopalganj. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Gopalganj. 5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gopalganj. 6. The Anchal Adhikari, Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. …… Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Abbas Haider, Advocate with Mr Md. Safiyan, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Ajay, S.C.-11. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR KATRIAR THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ******* S.P. Singh, J. The writ petitioners pray for quashing the order of the learned Collector (Respondent no.2) and the learned Additional 2 Collector (respondent no.3), dated 27.2.1997, passed in L.C. Case No.28M/269 of 1973-74, whereby the Anchal Adhikari was directed to distribute the surplus land of the petitioners. 2. The facts of the case in short are that a Land Ceiling Case No.28M/269 of 1973-74 was initiated against the predecessor of the petitioners, Haroon Rasheed with respect to 25.54 acres of land. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gopalganj vide his order dated 6.6.1984 held that the petitioners did not have any surplus land and dropped the proceedings. On 3.7.1985 Haroon Rasheed died leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs. The matter was reopened in the year 1988 on the order of the learned Additional Collector and a fresh enquiry started against Haroon Rasheed. The petitioners assert that Haroon Rasheed died long back in 1985, and no notice was sent to them neither they were impleaded a party. On 16.11.1993 a draft statement was published under section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and out of total land held by the petitioners, 98 decimals of land were declared surplus after allowing only one unit of 24.56 acres. In the said draft statement 11.32 acres was shown as Class-IV land, 8.50 acres as Class-III and 5.72 acres as Class-II land. The draft statement of status of land was sent to the Collector of the district for his approval. The learned Collector on 3 perusal of the materials on record found that 761/2 decimals of land of plot no.1989, Khata no.25 of village- Dhama Pokar was not included in the land of the petitioners and the same also was not the subject-matter of the earlier proceedings. The learned Collector sent back the record for inclusion of land and publication of fresh statement. On 1.2.1997 notification under section 15(1) of the Act was published giving rise to impugned order, contained in Annexure-1. 3. The petitioners submit that no opportunity of hearing was provided to them while reopening the matter afresh on the order of the learned Additional Collector. It would appear from the own statements of the petitioners, contained in Annexure-7 that they were provided opportunity to file objection to the draft statement under section 10(2) of the Act, pursuant to which it was found that 98 decimals of land stands surplus. The petitioners could not justifiably make grievance with respect to declaration of 98 decimals of land as surplus as they were provided opportunity to make objection under section 10(2) of the Act. 4. The next grievance of the petitioners is in respect of inclusion of 761/2 decimals of land, which they claim not to be belonging to them. In case, the aforesaid land does not belong to the petitioners they would in no way be prejudiced. Furthermore the petitioners can exercise their option and it would be open to them to 4 surrender this land if they so desire. So far as 98 decimals of surplus land is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not given opportunity to exercise their options. This submission of the petitioners is well-founded and we are of the view that the petitioners should be given right to exercise options in terms of the provisions of the Act. The petitioners are granted liberty to file their options with respect to both 98 and 761/2 decimals of lands within a period of six weeks before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gopalganj who would consider the same favourably and expeditiously. 5. With the aforesaid direction this writ petition is disposed of. (S.P. Singh, J.) S.K. Katriar, J. I agree. (S.K. Katriar, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 4th day of March, 2011 S.K.Pathak/ (NAFR)