IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13236 of 2010 1. PHOOL CHUNA DEVI W/O HEMANT RAO R/O VILL.- MALDI, P.S. SHIKARPUR ANCHAL, NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 2. ANITA DEVI W/O PRABHU RAO R/O VILL.- MALDI, P.S. SHIKARPUR ANCHAL, NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 3. POONAM DEVI W/O SHAMBHOO RAO R/O VILL.- MALDI, P.S. SHIKARPUR ANCHAL, NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN ---PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 2. THE ADDL. COLLECTOR, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 3. THE S.D.O., NARKATIYAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN 4. THE LAND REFORMS DY. COLLECTOR NARKATIYAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN 5. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI, NARKATIYAGANJ, WEST CHAMPARAN 6. DWARIKA RAM S/O BHOJ RAM R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- MALDI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, ANCHAL NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 7. PATTAN RAM S/O BHAGAT RAM R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- MALDI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, ANCHAL NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 8. CHANAR RAM S/O MAN BODH RAM R/O VILLAGE & P.O.- MALDI, P.S. SHIKARPUR, ANCHAL NARKATIYAGANJ, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN --- RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioners : Mr. K.K.Tiwary, Advocate. For the State : Mr. G.G.Tiwary, A.C. to AAG-2, For respondent Nos. 6 to 8 : Mr. Bashishtha Narain Mishra, Advocate. ----------- 05 10.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and respondent nos. 6 to 8. Present application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the sustainability of order dated 23.07.2010, passed by respondent no.5, Anchal Adhikari in Land Ceiling Case no. 279/76- 77/2/1992-93 whereby the land claimed by the writ petitioners 2 have been directed to be mutated in the name of respondents. Prayer of the petitioners for not issuing rent receipt in respect of the land claimed by them during the pendency of the proceeding filed by the writ petitioners under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) was not accepted. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- Petitioners claimed the land by a reason of sale deed executed in the year 1997 by one Mahendra Prasad (brother of Chandrika Prasad). It is further case of the petitioners that after such purchase land stood mutated in their names. A land Ceiling proceeding was initiated against one Binod Prasad in which the land in question were incorporated as the lands belonging to aforesaid Binod Prasad. Said matter reached finality when the revision preferred by Binod Prasad was considered and rejected by the Board of Revenue by a resolution dated 17.09.1993. It is admitted position that subsequent thereto a notification in terms of Section 15 (1) of the Act has been published, as a result whereof, the lands in question stood vested in the State of Bihar free of all encumbrance. It further appears that petitioners having become cognizant about all these facts filed an application under Section 45B of the Act before the respondent authority for re- opening of the proceeding in the year 2000, which is said to be pending. This is what the petitioners have averred in paragraph nos. 8 and 9:- 3 “8. That when petitioners got knowledge about the ceiling case, petitioner‟s family members enquired from Anchal and also from Bettiah L.R.D.C./ Addl. Collector office, obtained papers petitioners were advise to file a case before the Hon‟ble Minister Revenue u/s 45B of the Ceiling Act, and accordingly petitioners filed along with one Suraj Prasad case before Hon‟ble Minister on 11.12.2000 as case no. 4 of 2000, thereafter on 26.6.2001 the Hon‟ble Minister pleased to issue notice to Binod Prasad the land Holder, and collector of the District directed to appear on the next date fixed. The order of status quo was also passed but in course of getting certified copy the peskar told that order of status quo not mentioned in the order sheet later on again it was mentioned before the Hon‟ble Minister and requested to pass order of status quo, the Hon‟ble Minister said that now no need to pass order because collector asked to appear. 9. That the Ld. Collector not appear for several dates, then collector was directed to sent report regarding the facts of case but it was also not sent, but sometime in this year, 2010 the collector sent his report. Thereafter the counsel of the petitioner requested for a copy of report so that matter could be explained in the light of report or if necessary reply to report could be filed the date was fixed on 30.06.08, but on that day the Ld. Minister could not hold court. The clerk of the Advocate several time approach the peskar about the next date, but peskar told that date will be fixed with the permission of the Minister. It is clear that case was filed for re-opening the case of Binod Prasad but till then case is still pending. But now on the pressure of purchadharies and keeping in mind the general Election which is likely to be held in the end of 2010, the local MLAS ministers and on the parties bases started giving pressure to authorities to do the things beyond the law so that lands should be given in possession of purchadharies and get the benefit in general election.” It is the stand of the petitioners that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding the impugned order has been passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari whereby 4 „Jamabandi‟ respecting the land in question was interfered with and the names of purchadharies (private respondent nos. 6 to 8 besides others) were mutated. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 8 submits that the land stood vested in the State of Bihar by issuing notification under Section 15(1) of the Act in the year 1992, whereafter the respondents herein and several others were issued purcha(s) in their names in terms of Section 27 of the Act, and since then they are in cultivating possession of the land so settled with them. It is admitted by both the parties that a proceeding respecting the land in question is pending before the authority, who is competent to re-open the proceeding in terms of Section 45B of the Act. Both parties agree that the order impugned passed by respondent Anchal Adhikari shall be subject to the final adjudication of the aforesaid proceeding pending before the authority. Mr. Mishra appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 8 submits that in the proceeding filed under Section 45 B of the Act, the purchadharies/settlees including the respondents herein have not been impleaded as respondents and as such he shall be filing an application in this regard before the said authority for proper adjudication of the case. Having heard both sides and after perusing the material on record, this much is evident that the lands claimed by the petitioners by reason of sale effected in the year 1997 was/were incorporated in the land ceiling proceeding initiated 5 against Binod Prasad, and final adjudication was made therein followed by notification under Section 15(1) of the Act. The petitioners herein have approached the authority under Section 45B of the Act for re-opening of the proceeding and to exclude the land covered by the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. It further appears from paragraph no. 8 and 9 of the writ petition that Hon‟ble Minister, the competent authority under Section 45B of the Act, is already in seisin of the matter wherein certain records/reports were called for and sent to the said authority. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view, that the impugned order by which the names of the private respondents and others settlees have been mutated in the records of right by interfering with the „Jamabandi‟ shall abide by the final adjudication to be made in the said proceeding pending before the competent authority under Section 45B of the Act at the instance of the writ petitioners. There is yet another issue to be dealt with. There appears to be claim and counter claim with regard to the actual possession of the land. It is asserted on behalf of the writ petitioners that they are still in possession of the land vended in their favour whereas respondent nos. 6 to 8 have filed a counter affidavit in order to assert that right from 1992, they are in possession of the pieces of land so settled in their favour. By reason of impugned order only mutation has been directed to be issued in their favour. Thus, their being claim and counter claim with regard to possession of the land, this Court deems it 6 expedient to observe that during the pendency of the aforesaid proceeding filed under Section 45B of the Act pending before the Hon‟ble Minister, status quo with regard to the lands in question shall be maintained. It will be however, open to the authority under Section 45B of the Act to pass appropriate orders in this regard after hearing the parties. The application is disposed of. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)