IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7729 of 2003 Ashwini Kumar Sahu, son of Late Parmeshwar sahu, Mohalla Purani Bazar Sahu Chowk, Ps and district Muzaffarpur – Petitioner. Vs. 1) the State of Bihar, 2) The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, Patna. 3) The District Magistrate, sitamarhi. 4) The Addl. Collector, Sitamarhi. 5) The circle Officer, Nanpur, sitamarhi. 6) The Superintendent, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna – Respondents. … 5 6.9.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add the superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna as respondent in this case. Ceiling Proceeding No.4/1989-90 was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a petition filed on behalf of the villagers. The petitioner declared the lands that he owned, and claimed two units, one for himself and one for his son Shekhar Kumar Sahu. The second son Jayant Kumar Sahu was a minor on the cut of date. In order to support his case the petitioner produced before the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi four documents, i.e. voters’ list, horoscope, L.I.C. policy and the medical certificate. According to the voters list, dated 1.1.1993 Shekhar Kumar Sahu was shown to be forty two years of age on 1.1.1993, whereas Jayant Kumar Sahu was shown to be 34 years of age, which made them nineteen years and eleven years respectively on 9.9.1970. This court does not intend to rely on the horoscope for any purpose whatsoever. The next document is the L.I.C policy which was issued on 11.2.1992. According to the policy produced by the petitioner the age of Shekhar Kumar Sahu on 19.9.1970 would be 2 18 years and 9 months, whereas the age of Jayant would be 11 years. Finally the petitioner produced the medical report, dated 11.2.1993 which indicates that Shekhar Kumar Sahu was 19 years old and Jayant Kumar Sah was 11 years of age. Accordingly two units were granted to the petitioner. The order of the Additional Collector was challenged before the Collector, Sitamarhi by one Ramasish Yadav through the State of Bihar. Ramasish Yadav claimed that the petitioner has not disclosed the correct age of his children and the petitioner has suppressed the lands that he owned at Muzaffarpur and Sitamarhi. The Collector of Sitamarhi directed that an enquiry should be made with respect to the two issues raised on behalf of Ramasish Yadav. It appears that no enquiry was held. Finally, an order was passed by the Additional Collector on 12.5.2002 granting one unit to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s son Shekhar Kumar Sahu was not major on the cut of date i.e. 9.9.1970. This order dated 12.5.2000 was challenged before the Collector who vide order contained in Annexure 6 has relied on a document which was allegedly filed by the petitioner in a bank, in order to obtain loan, which shows that his son was a minor on the date of filing of the application and on the basis of the aforesaid fact the Collector rejected the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue which was also dismissed with an observation that the petitioner may file an application under section 45B of the Act for reopening the case, if so advised. 3 This court must record its displeasure over the fact that the Collector of the District entertains the application filed on behalf of the villagers for initiation of a ceiling proceeding without conducting an enquiry. If some doubt was created in the mind of the authorities on the application or complaint, the Collector should at least make an enquiry, and that too after giving notice to the person concerned, before initiating a proceeding. If some precaution is not taken to weed out the genuine or not so genuine complaints of the villagers, there will be no end to such complaint and it would become a fashion to file application due to personal vendetta or for some undue advantage. In any view of the matter this application had been entertained and subsequently an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Collector, who did not find it fit case for interference.The matter could have rested. However, it seems that Ramsish Yadav having some vested interest or some sort of grudge against the petitioner decided to pursue the matter and obtained orders in his favour. Considering that the only dispute is with respect to age of Shekhar Kumar Sahu and at least two documents produced by the petitioner i.e. policy of L.I.C. and the medical report has not been disputed by the said Ramasish Yadav nor the State has taken any action to get Shekhar Kumar Sahu medically examined in order to establish that he was major on the cut of date, I do not see any reason why on the basis of some petitions or applications produced before the authorities, he should come to a conclusion that Shekhar Kumar Sahu was a minor on the cut of date. 4 I accordingly direct the Superintendent, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna to determine the age of Shekhar Kumar Sahu, son of Ashwini Kumar Sahu within a period of six months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. The petitioner would also have leave to present himself before the Superintendent, Patna Medical College & Hospital along with a copy of this order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Superintendent will fix a date for the medical board and send a notice to the petitioner by registered post so that he may appear before the Board along with his son or if possible he may communicate the date when the petitioner presents himself with a copy of this order to determine the age of petitioner’s son. After the report is prepared, the Superintendent, P.M.C.H. may send copy of the report to the Collector, Sitamarhi with a copy to the petitioner at the address to be supplied by him. The Collector may thereafter rehear the matter in accordance with law. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. In the mean time the Collector, Sitamarhi is directed not to disturb the possession of the petitioner on the lands which are the subject matter of Ceiling Case No. 4/1989-90. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)