IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11053 of 2007 With C.W.J.C. No.15278 of 2007 In C.W.J.C. No. 11053 of 2007 1. Rajdeo Mahto son of Late Jhulan Mahto 2. Palat Mahto son of Jag Mahto 3. Prem Narayan Mahto son of late Puranmasi Mahto 4. Dinesh Mahto son of Rajdeo Mahto 5. Chandia Devi wife of Prem Narayan Mahto 6. Mostt, Bechani Devi wife of late Aasdeo Mahto 7. Bhutan Mian son of Wasir Mian 8. Ramjit Mahto son of Bhola Mahto 9. Bhagirath Mahto son of Bhola Mahto 10. Chandan Mahto son of Jag Mahto 11. Mostt. Hussain Bano Widow of Late Roshe Mian all resident of Village- Laxmipur, P.O. Jamunia, P.S. Suhadra, District West Champaran(Bettiah) --------- Petitioners. In C.W.J.C. No. 15278 of 2007 1. Girja Devi, wife of Lal Bahadur Mahto, resident of Village- Lakshmipur, P.S. Subhadra, District- West Champaran. 2. Palat Mahto, son of late Raghu Mahto 3. Nageshwar Mahto, son of late Sukhram Mahto 4. Shrawan Mahto, son of late Suba Mahto 5. Budheshwar Mahto, son of Palat Mahto 6. Bishwanath Thakur, son of late Amar Thakur 7. Lallu Thakur, son of Bisnath Thakur 8. Most. Loudi, wife of late Tulsi Mahto 9. Smt. Rambha Devi, wife of Jalu Mahto 10. Shambhu Mahto, son of Bhagauti Mahto 11. Rameshwar Mahto, son of late Sankahi Mahto 12. Bhola Mahto, son of Ram Ishwar Mahto 13. Mahesh Mahto, son of late Rogahi Mahto 14. Rupa Mahto, son of late Sheonath Mahto 15. Babu Lal Ram, son of Nathuni Ram 16. Birendra Ram, son of Babu Lal Ram 17. Dhupan Manjhi, son of late Bagar Manjhi 18. Kamraksha Manjhi, son of late Bagar Manjhi 19. Ratan Thakur, son of Shesh Nath Thakur 20. Radheshyam Thakur, son of Shesh Nath Thakur 21. Prabhu Mahto, son of Bhagauti Mahto 22. Om Prakash Choudhary, son of Triveni Choudhary 23. Mathura Baitha, son of Sajawal Baitha 24. Suryadeo Ram, son of Nathuni Ram 25. Most. Kamali Devi, wife of late Raghu Mahto 26. Thagni Devi, wife of Nagendra Mahto 27. Munna Ram, son of Babu Lal Ram 28. Ram Naresh Ram, son of Babu lal Ram 2 29. Khuba Mahto, son of late Nathuni Mahto 30. Mahendra Mahto, son of late Bhulan Mahto, all resident of Village- Laxmipur, P.O. Jamunia, P.S. Suhadra, District- West Champaran (Bettiah) ----- Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. District Magistrate-cum-Collector, West Champaran at Betiah 4. Additional Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah 5. Circle Officer, Gounaha Anchal, District West Champaran, Bettiah. 6. Prabhu Jha, son of Kedar Jha, resident of Village Bilaspur, P.S. Ramnagar, District-West Champaran Bettiah. 7. Neetu Kumari, daughter of Bishambhar Rai, resident of Village Bilashpur, P.s. Ram,nagar, District West Champaran, Bettiah ---------- ----- Respondents (in both the cases). ------------ 6. 24.2.2009 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar for the petitioners, Mr. Rajnish Kant, learned Assistant Counsel to Standing Counsel No.3( Ceiling) for respondent nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. Suresh Chandra Prasad Sinha for respondent nos. 6 and 7. It arises out of proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners of both the writ petitions are Purcha-holders within the meaning of section 27 of the Act. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 of both the writ petitions have placed on record their counter affidavit. Both these writ petitions arise out of a common order and are being disposed of by this order. The same is directed against the order dated 7.7.2004 (Annexure-4), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Case No. 114 of 2002 and 115 of 2002 (Nita Kumari & Prabhu Jha Vrs. The State of Bihar), whereby respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been declared to be beyond the scope and ambit of the land ceiling proceedings started against one Nripendra Narain Rai. The lands belonging to respondent nos. 6 and 7, 3 completely unconnected with the land-holder were, inadvertently included within the proceedings and were declared surplus. These lands were settled in favour of the petitioners in terms of section 27 of the Act and Purchas were accordingly issued. Alarmed by the situation, respondent nos. 6 and 7 agitated the matter all through taking the stand that they are completely unconnected of the family of said Nripendra Narain Rai and, therefore, their lands can never be taken into account with respect to the land ceiling proceedings of Nripendra Narain Rai. Respondent nos. 6 and 7got justice by the impugned order, whereby their lands have been declared to be beyond the scope and ambit of the lands ceiling proceedings against Nirpendra Narain Rai. Consequently modification in the notifications have been directed to be issued. Learned counsel for the petitioners raises two fold grievance before this Court. In his submission, the petitioners are valid Purcha-holders within the meaning of section 27 of the Act and, therefore, ought to have been impleaded as parties before the authorities below. He also submits that the petitioners are in possession of the following lands for some time and, therefore, they should be allowed to continue in possession of the same till such time alternative lands are settled in their favour: Petitioner No. Name Khata No. Plot No. Area 1. Rajdeo Mahto 20 107/2 1 Acre 2. Palat Mahto 20 107/3 59 Dec. 3. Prem Narayan Mahto 63 71/04 90 dec. 4. Dinesh Mahto 14 113 81 dec. 5. Chandia Devi 52 119 1 Acre 120/2 6. Bechani Devi 17 252/3 1 Acre 7. Bhutan Mian 28 153 65 dec. 8. Ramjit Mahto 52 120/1 1 Acre 4 20 107/1 9.Ghagirath Mahto 52 360/2 1 acre 365 367/1 10. Chandan Mahto 32 101 93 dec 20 71/1 11. Md. Husna Bano 63 427/6 50 dec In C.W.J.C. No. 15278 of 2007 1. Girja Devi 63 51/6 90 dec 2. Palat Mahto 20 107/3 59 dec. 3. Nageshwar Mahto 63 80/434/5 1 acre 4. Shrawan Mahto 63 8/434/12 1 acre 5. Budheshwar Matho 63 71/8 93 dec 6. Bishwanath Thakur 63 427/10 1 acre 7. Lallu Thakur 63 427/36 50 dec 8. Most. Loudi 63 80/434/8 1 acre 9. Smt. Rambha Devi 63 08/434/13 1 acre 10.Shambhu Mahto 63 427/26 1 acre 11. Rameshwar Mahto 63 80/434/15 1 acre 12. Bhola Mahto 63 427/27 1 acre 13. Mahesh Mahto 63 80/434/2 1 acre 14. Rupa Mahto 63 80/434/9 1 acre 15. Babu Lal Ram 65 401/2 1acre 16. Birendra Ram 68 400/1 1 acre 17. Dhupan Manjhi 52 367/2 1 acre 382/1 18. Kamraksha Manjhi 20,52 257 1 acre 359 360 19. Ratan Thakur 63 427/37 50 dec 20. Radheshyam Thakur 63 427/9 1 acre 21. Prabhu Mahto 63 80/434/6 1 acre 22. Om Prakash Choudhary 17 252/2 1 acre 23. Mathura Baitha 63 80/434/1 1 acre 24. Suryadeo Ram 65 401/3 1 acre 25. Most.Kamali Devi 52 123 81dec 26. Thagni Devi 20 251/2 1 acre 27. Munna Ram 68,65 400/3 1 acre 401/1 28. Ram Naresh Ram 68 400/2 1 acre 29. Khuba Mahto 63 80/434/4 1 acre 30. Mahendra Mahto 63 80/434/7 1 Acre Learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 and 7 submits that the petitioners have no vested right in terms of section 27 of the Act, much less in a situation like the present one where lands of respondent 5 nos. 6 and 7 have been erroneously settled in their favour. He also submits that the principles of natural justice are not attracted in such a situation. He lastly submits that they have been sufficiently harassed for all these years and the petitioners are not being allowed respite even after the State Government has cancelled the Purchas. He also relies on the order dated 5.7.2005 (Annexure-B), passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13647 of 2004 (Rajdeo Mahto Vs.State of Bihar & Ors.). We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that respondent nos. 6 and 7 were needlessly dragged in the land ceiling proceedings with respect to Nripendra Narain Rai and their lands have been declared surplus in unconnected proceedings. Justice has ultimately been done to them by the impugned order, whereby his lands have been released from the land ceiling proceedings of Nripendra Narain Rai. In such a situation, issuance of Purcha with respect to the lands of respondent nos. 6 and 7 in favour of the petitioners was null and void. Principles of natural justice are not attracted in such a situation. Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University V. Mansoor Ali Khan, A.I.R. 2000 SC 2783. Paragraph 22 is reproduced hereinbelow: “ 22. Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.I. Kapoor’s case (AIR 1981 SC 136), laid two exceptions (at p. 395 of SCC): (at pp. 147 and 148 of AIR) namely, “if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible”, then in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words, if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not 6 necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. Of course, this being an exception, great care must be taken in applying this exception.” It is inconceivable that Purcha in terms of 27 of the Act can be issued with respect to the lands of persons against whom lands ceiling proceedings were not initiated. I must notice the said order dated 5.7.2005, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13647 of 2004, for identical reliefs. Rajdeo Mahto is petitioner no.1 herein, and was petitioner there also. This Court made the following observation in the said order: “… Thus more than 80 acres of land were still left from that acquisition in which the petitioner could be easily accommodated……The petitioner may however agitate his grievance(s) and he may make a representation enclosing a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.” In that view of the matter, surely petitioner no.1 herein is guilty of gross abuse of the process of the court by re-agitating the matter again by preferring the present writ petition. In the result, both these writ petitions are dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. )