IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1277 of 2006 MANGAL KISHORE PD.NR.SINGH, SON OF LATE ANAND KISHORE PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIGARH , P.S. RUNNI SAIDPUR, DISTRICT SITAMARHI …PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI 4. SIBU DHANGAR, SON OF SUKHLAL DHANGAR 5. JOGINDER DHANGAR, SON OF BHUNESHWAR DHANGAR 6. PARICHHAN RAM, SON OF RAM CHANDRA RAM 7. KUSHESHWAR RAM SON OF LAKHAN RAM 8. NARAYAN RAM, SON OF NIRSU RAM 9. DEV NANDAN RAM, SON OF PARICHHAN RAM 10. SAHINDRA RAM, SON OF BISHESHWAR RAM 11. AWADHESH RAM, SON OF KHESARI RAM 12. CHANDAR RAM, SON OF THITHAR RAM 13. MOST. PARU WIDOW OF LATE BHAROS DHANGAR 14. RAGHURAJ PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH 15. DEV RAJ PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH 16. PRITHVIURAJ PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH 17. VIJAY KUMAR PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH 18. JAI PRAKASH PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH, RESPODNENTS 14 TO 18 SONS OF LATE HANSRAJ PRASAD NR, SINGH 19. SUNIL KUMAR PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH 20. ANIL KUMAR PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH 21. RANDHIR KUMAR PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH RESPONDENT NOS.19 TO 21 SONS OF LATE RAMRAJ PRASAD NARAYAN SINGH. RESPONDENTS 4 TO 21 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALIGARH P.S. RUNNI SAIDPUR DISTRICT SITAMARHI. …RESPONDENTS For the petitioner :Mr.V.R.P.Singh For the State :Mr. Ajay, S.C. XI ----------- 03. 06.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner is questioning the sustainability of the order dated 6.11.1995 passed by the Respondent-Collector, Sitamarhi in Land Ceiling Miscellaneous Case No.14/92 (Annexure-7). A brief background of the case is required to be 2 sketched. A ceiling proceeding was initiated against the father of the petitioner vide L.C. Case No. 12/1975. The land(s) in question appertaining to R.S.P. Nos. 580(0.56 acre), 221(0.41 acre), 261(0.55 acre) and 245(2.40 acre from the south-west Lichi Orchard) were shown to be the land(s) of the petitioner(land holder). The landholder simultaneously also filed his option to retain land(s) including the subject land(s). On a consideration of the matter, the landholder was found in possession of 11.50 acres of land in excess to which the family was entitled to and accordingly the same was declared surplus in the hands of the landholder. Two writ proceedings being CWJC Nos. 5507 of 1986 & 1277 of 1987 were filed in this court claiming one more unit to the grandson of the original landholder. This Court allowed the said application(s) whereby the landholder was found entitled to one more unit for the grand son of original landholder. In the light of the order of this Court Respondent-Collector by order dated 4.01.1991 (Annexure-1) dropped the proceeding being L.C. 12/75 concluding therein that the family was entitled to 05 ceiling unit besides three additional units and thus no land was held in excess of the ceiling area admissible to the landholder. Simultaneously, it appears, land ceiling case being L.C. Case No. 6/73-74 was/were initiated against the full brother of the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Hansraj Prasad Narayan Singh. Said family was held entitled to hold 210 acres 3 of land for seven units to which the family was held entitled to and 40.22/ ½ acres of land were shown surplus in the hands of the said landholder. One of the grand sons of Hansraj Prasad Narayan Singh filed a writ petition vide CWJC No. 4852 of 1992 claiming one additional unit for himself. While the said matter was pending at that stage the petitioner along with his full brother namely Govind Kishore Narayan Singh filed a proceeding for reopening the land ceiling proceeding no. 6/72-73 to delete therefrom the subject land(s) which was/were shown to be the lands of full brother of H.P.N.Singh (full brother of the land owner). Said matter remained pending. In the meanwhile, the writ petition filed by the grand son of H.P.N. Singh was allowed by an order dated 12.01.1993, whereby the grand son was also found and held entitled to one separate ceiling unit. The Addl. Collector in the light of the said order by order dated 19.8.1993 passed an order whereby the land holder (H.P.N. Singh) was held entitled to 210+30=240 acres of land and 10.22 ½ acres were only found surplus in the hands of the said landholder. The application preferred by the petitioner along with his full brother giving rise to Misc. Case No.14/92 was subsequently taken up by the Respondent-Collector and dropped by order dated 6.11.1995 (Annexure-7) concluding therein that the power vested in the Collector under section 45 B of the Act has been withdrawn and vested in some other authority by reason of Ordinance no.20/95 effective from 8.9.1995. It is the case of the petitioner that an application was 4 filed in the said proceeding on 14.11.2003 for recall of the order in view of the ratio laid down in this regard by this Hon’ble Court as well the clarification made by the government as contained in letter bearing memo no.787 dated 4.8.1999 (Annexure-8). It is the case of the petitioner that the matter remained pending before the said authority which prompted the petitioner to approach this court seeking relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent-Collector refused to entertain the application preferred by the petitioner before the amendment was brought about in the relevant provision of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. It is submitted that this Court on numerous occasions has clarified the position that any application preferred and entertained prior to the amendment brought about by Bihar Ordinance No.20/95 effective from 8.9.1995 has to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by the Respondent-Collector. Learned counsel referring to annexure-8, submits that respondents have themselves clarified this position in law by the said communication dated 21.8.1999. In the light of the aforesaid facts, Respondent-Collector ought to have recalled the order dated 6.11.1995 and proceeded to dispose of the same in accordance with law after noticing all the parties concerned. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State- Respondents, on the contrary, submits that the said order was passed on 6.11.1995. The petitioner filed the present proceeding in January, 2006. There is thus inordinate and unexplained delay 5 in approaching this Court and considering that aspect of the matter, this Court may refuse to exercise its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction as delay defeats equity. Petitioner has stated in paras 36 to 41 of the writ petition as under:- That under the impression that the lands of the petitioner would be excluded from the Land Ceiling proceeding in L.C. Case no.6/73-74, which was pending disposal before the Collector, Sitamarhi/Additional Collector, Sitamarhi and on wrong legal advice no action could be taken against the order dated 6/11/95 passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi in Misc. Case No.14 of 1992. That in the meantime Govind Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh died. That the petitioner, after his recovery from prolonged illness, filed a petition for recall of the order dated 6/11/1995 passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi in Misc Case No.14/1992-93 on 14/11/2003. That the Collector, Sitamarhi is not passing any order on the petition dated 14.11.2003 and the matter is simply adjourned from one date to another. That in the meantime the private respondents 4 to 13 are trying to dispossess the petitioner from disputed land, the major portion whereof is Lichi orchard(R.S.P. No.245 measuring 2.40 Acre) and part of it is pond(R.S.P. No.221 measuring 0.41 Acre), though they have not been given possession of the same by Revenue authorities. That although the petitioner is still in possession of the aforementioned disputed lands, he has reasonable apprehension in his mind that he might 6 be dispossessed from his aforementioned lands on the basis of wrong and illegal acquisition of his land in Land Ceiling Case No.6 of 73-74 treating those lands as the lands of Hansraj Prasad Singh and his family.” This Court by a proceeding dated 01.03.2006 had restrained the respondents from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the disputed land measuring a total area of 3.92 acres set out in para 3 of the writ petition. From materials on record, this Court finds that delay, if any, has been appropriately explained. Bona fide claim of the petitioner cannot be thrown to the winds on this count itself. Looking at the impugned order (Annexure-7), it appears that Respondent-Collector refused to proceed with the application preferred by the petitioner and his brother on the sole ground that he has been divested of the jurisdiction in view of the amendment brought about in the Act by Bihar Ordinance No.20/95. It is the admitted position that the petitioner(s) had already approached the Respondent-Collector prior to the said amendment. The said matter remained pending before the authority. This Court on numerous occasions clarified the position. The State-respondents have also taken care in clarifying the position in law as would appear from annexure-8. In that view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that basis on which Respondent-Collector refused to entertain the application and proceed therewith in accordance with law is non est in the eye of law. 7 Accordingly, the said order as contained in annexure-7 is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is directed to appear before the said respondent along with a copy of the present order within four weeks from today. The Respondent- Collector shall thereafter take up the Miscellaneous Case No.14/92 and after hearing all the parties dispose of the same in accordance with law. For four weeks from today, the interim order passed by this Court on 01.03.2006 shall remain operative. The petitioner thereafter shall be at liberty to seek interim relief from the said court. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )