IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4298 of 2011 1. JUGESHWAR RISHI S/O LATE SAINI RISHI R/O VILL. HASDA P.S. SADAR, DIST. PURNEA 2. SHRI LAL ORAON, SON OF LATE DALLU ORAON, R/O VILL. HASDA P.S. SADAR, DIST. PURNEA --- PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNEA 3. THE CIRCLE OFFICER PURNEA, EAST PURNEA 4. THE S.D.M. SADAR PURNEA 5. DAROGI LAL MANDAL, SON OF LATE TUKMON MANDAL R/O VILL KASBA P.S. KASBA, DIST. PURNEA --- RESPONDENTS. For the petitioners : Mr. Ajit Ranjan Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ram Duj Singh J.C. to S.C.12. ----------- 02 09.03.2011 Heard both sides. Present application has been filed seeking quashment of notification issued vide memo no. 1336 dated 26.12.2000(Annexure-1) issued by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Purnea, directing the Revenue Karmchari to cancel the Jamabandi created in the name of the writ petitioners in respect of the lands which was settled with them sometimes in 1985-86(Annexure-2). The dispute relates to land appertaining to old khata no. 217, plot no. 733 corresponding to new khata no. 284, plot nos. 206, 207 and 210 measuring an area of 1.28 acres. It appears that the aforesaid land was declared surplus in a land ceiling proceeding. A writ proceeding was preferred by respondent no.5 ( Darogi Lal Mandal) before this Court questioning clubbing of these lands in the land ceiling proceeding initiated against another person and thereafter declaring them surplus. This Court, by a detailed order allowed the said application by a proceeding dated 07.01.99 (Annexure-4). This Court deems it apposite to quote paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the said order which is/are as under:- 2 “4. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that the petitioner has purchased the land from a person who did not possess the land in excess to the ceiling area. The proceeding in terms of section 45B of the Act was never initiated against the respondent no.4 and, as such, the respondent authorities were not justified in clubbing the land of the petitioner, particularly having regard to the Civil Court decree wherein the title of the land, in question, was declared in favour of the respondent no.5. The only material before the respondent authority was the entry made in the khatian and on the said basis the land was treated to be the land of respondent no.4. As stated above the said entry was set aside by the civil court and the title of the disputed land, was confirmed in favour of the petitioner in the aforesaid title suit. That apart, after purchase of the land the name of the petitioner was mutated with respect to the land in question, the respondent authority could have easily ascertained the real owner of the disputed land before declaring it surplus. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. I am of the view that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of the land, in question, from the respondent no.5 against whom no proceeding was ever initiated. No notice was issued to the petitioner at any stage of the proceeding either. According part of the Gazette Notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act by which the land of the petitioner, appertaining to plots, in question, is hereby quashed.” In the light of said order the impugned notice has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the said notification/notice submits that the petitioners were found eligible persons and only thereafter they were settled with part of the aforesaid land vide Annexure-2 way back in 1985-86, and since then they are living thereon. It is submitted the impugned order is bad in law since no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before issuing the same. It is also contended that since the petitioners have already been 3 adjudged as eligible person entitled to settlement of Government land and, as such, in case this Court is not inclined to allow the present application then an appropriate direction may be issued to the ceiling authorities to consider their cases for settlement of suitable tract/piece of land. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supports the impugned order. It is submitted that the writ application is fit to be dismissed on two counts. Firstly the notice impugned in the present application (Annexure-1) was issued in 2000, whereas the present application has been lodged in this Court after inordinate delay in the year 2011.Secondly, from bare perusal of Annexure-1 it would appear that the same has been issued in compliance of order of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. no. 4295 of 1988 (Annexure-4). I have considered the submissions and perused the materials on record. It appears the respondent no.5 being aggrieved by illegal clubbing of his land with another landholder and thereafter declaring them surplus in the hands of the said land holder approached this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 4295 of 1988. State respondents contested the same and filed counter affidavit. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court found that the petitioners were the bonafide purchaser of the land which was declared as such in a title suit. It was also found therein that they did not possess land in excess to the ceiling area. Accordingly part of the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act which related to the land in question (claimed by the respondent no.5) was set aside and quashed. It appears in the 4 meanwhile part of the land so declared surplus in the land ceiling proceeding was/were settled with the petitioners for a period of 30 years with certain conditions. Since the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act issued in relation to the land in question was quashed by this Court the authorities by the impugned notice directed the Revenue Karmchari to cancel Jamabandi earlier created in the name of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned notice. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lands claimed by them and covered by Annexure-2 series were settled with them under the orders of this competent authority in the year 1985 and since then they were residing thereon. Such settlement was made after having found that the petitioners were eligible for such settlement and as such in case the petitioners are denuded of their right/claim over the said land by virtue of the impugned notice passed in pursuance of Annexure-4 then they should be considered for settlement of another piece/tract of land. Learned counsel for the State respondents, on the other hand, submits that if the authorities have surplus lands with them for settlement then the case of the petitioners for fresh settlement is required to be considered. Having heard the parties. This Court while dismissing the application observes that the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the concerned authority for settlement of fresh piece/tract of land with them. If any such application is filed within a reasonable time the ceiling authority shall consider the said representation/application in accordance with law and if the said respondents have surplus/suitable 5 lands in their hands then they shall consider settlement of the same with the petitioners in accordance with law but expeditiously. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)