1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri. Satyabir Bharti, assisted by learned advocate Ms. Sushmita Sharma and learned AC to SC-23.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land pertaining to Khata No. 197, Plot No. 1493, 1494 and 1495 measuring 23.22 acres at Mauza - Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura is the ancestral property of the petitioners.

3. It is next submitted that in the year 1973-74, the Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 2/11 Additional Collector Madhepura, initiated land ceiling proceeding Case No. 45/73-74 and declared the land in question to be surplus and the draft statement was consequently prepared. The Karta of the family, namely, Rameshwar Lal Bhuwania, being aggrieved by the draft statement preferred appeal before the Collector, Madhepura, being appeal No. 53/1983-84, which was rejected by the Collector by an order dated 7-3-1984.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 7-3-1984 in appeal No. 53/83-84, passed by the Collector, revision was filed before the Member Board of Revenue, which was also rejected by an order dated 11-4-1984, thereafter CWJC No. 2087 of 1985 was filed against the order dated 11-4-1984 passed by the Board of Revenue.

5. The learned counsel submits that during pendency of CWJC No. 2087 of 1985, the State Government came out with a notification contained in memo No. 85-2 dated 22-8-1989 for acquisition of total 34.50 acres of land which included the land in question measuring 23.22 acres.

6. The learned counsel next submits that no notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued to the petitioners, further in the year 1992, an award for 34.50 acres of land, which was acquired, was prepared, but since the Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 3/11 land in question was under ceiling proceedings, hence compensation of the land in question was determined under Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Land Ceiling Act 1961"), but no notice either under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as " L.A. Act ") or Land Ceiling Act 1961, was ever served on the petitioners.

7. It is further submitted that CWJC No. 2087 of 1985 was disposed of by this court by an order dated 25-9-1996 (Annexure-1) and the matter was remanded back to the Collector for fresh consideration.

8. The learned counsel submits that in pursuance of the order dated 25-9-1996 in CWJC No. 2087 of 1985, Ceiling Case No. 53 of 1996 was initiated and vide order dated 5-2- 2001 (Annexure-2), the land in question was released from ceiling case and final notification was published by District Gazette Notice dated 22-7-2002. The learned counsel submits that the fact which stands admitted is that the land in dispute in the instant writ application was declared surplus in a land ceiling case, but subsequent to remand, as recorded hereinabove by this Court ceiling case No. 53 of 1996 was initiated leading to release of the land in question from the ceiling case. Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 4/11

9. The learned counsel further submits that once the land in dispute was released from the ceiling proceeding, the respondents were required to determine the compensation under the L.A. Act 1894 in terms of Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act 1979, but the authorities were never bothered to determine the compensation nor prepared fresh award.

10. It is submitted that the petitioners thus approached the Collector, Madhepura in 2004 when they were informed that an award had been prepared in the year 1992 and if they are not satisfied with the award, they may resort to Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.

11. It is submitted that petitioners, under wrong legal advice, filed Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 2004, which was referred under Section 18 of the L.A. Act 1894 after four years vide order dated 26-7-2007, before the learned Sub-Judge, where the same was registered as Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 2008, which is still pending adjudication.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the Collector could not have referred the case before the learned Sub-Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, for the reason, that when the award was prepared in the year 1992, the land in dispute was under ceiling Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 5/11 proceeding and the award was prepared in terms of the Land Acquisition (Bihar Amendment) Act 1979, since the compensation for the land in question was determined under the Land Ceiling Act 1961, the same could not have been referred to the learned Sub-Judge under Section 18 of the L.A. Act 1894, as a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act 1894, could be made for the determination of compensation under the L.A. Act 1894 only, as such the reference by the Collector of the case under Section 18 of the L.A. Act 1894 was a nullity, hence the Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 2008 pending adjudication before the learned Sub-Judge is non-est in eyes of law, rather the Land Acquisition Case No. 1/2008 pending adjudication before the learned Sub-Judge is quorum non-judice.

13. The learned counsel next submits that when award was prepared in the year 1992, it was rightly prepared under the Land Ceiling Act 1961, but the moment the land in question was released from the ceiling proceeding, the authorities were required to determine the compensation afresh in terms of Section 23 of the L.A. Act 1894, no such determination was made nor award was prepared afresh .

14. It is submitted that the petitioner being aggrieved by the action of the Collector filed CWJC No. 3993 of 2018, the Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 6/11 CWJC No. 3993 of 2018 was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to file representation before the Collector by an order dated 23-11-2023 (Annexure-4), accordingly petitioners filed a representation dated 4-12-2023 before the Collector in compliance of the order dated 23-11-2023 in CWJC No. 3993 of 2018.

15. It is submitted that in view of the representation dated 4-12-2023 filed by petitioners, Miscellaneous (Land Acquisition) Case No. 4/2024 was initiated, thereafter the case in between 12-1-2024 to 5-7-2024 was listed nine times as detailed at para 23 of the writ petition. It is submitted that on six days, the Collector did not hold court.

16. It is next submitted that while Miscellaneous Case No. 4/2024 was pending adjudication, the time fixed by this court in CWJC No. 3993 of 2018 for disposing of the representation expired on 6-6-2024, it is submitted that since the time fixed by this Court for deciding the representation of the petitioners expired so the Collector, Madhepura got perturbed.

17. It is further submitted that Miscellaneous Case No. 4/2024 was taken up on 5-7-2024 and the next date fixed was 30-7-2024, the learned counsel for the petitioner was in personal difficulty on 30-7-2024 being a Tuesday, hence prayed that the Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 7/11 case be fixed on any Friday which was not palatable to the Collector, hence it is alleged in the writ petition that the learned lawyer was humiliated by the Collector. Accordingly the learned counsel for the petitioner sent a complaint to the competent authority vide registered post dated 11-7-2024, recording therein about the misbehavior meted out to him by the Collector.

18. The learned counsel submits that thereafter the learned counsel for the petitioner on his WhatsApp received a notice dated 6-7-2024 from the court of Collector on 26-7-2024 directing him to file a show cause, as to why a contempt proceeding be not initiated against him under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly filed CWJC No.11334 of 2024, against the notice dated 6-7- 2024 and the same was stayed by the court by an order dated 30-7-2024 and the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar was directed to hold an inquiry.

20. It is submitted that the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar after holding an inquiry filed his counter- affidavit in CWJC No. 11334 of 2024 along with letter No. 826 dated 13-8-2024 (Annexure-7) of the Collector, wherein it was stated that Miscellaneous Case No. 4/2024 has been disposed of Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 8/11 by an order dated 13-8-2024.

21. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that when counter affidavit was filed by the Chief Secretary in CWJC No. 11334 of 2024 then why the order of the Collector passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 2024 was not annexed.

22. It is further submitted that it appears that the Collector deliberately only informed the Chief Secretary that an order has been passed in the aforesaid miscellaneous case but then chose not to annex the copy of the order with his letter No. 826 dated 13-8-2024.

23. It is submitted that the petitioners on 13-8-2024 filed a requisition in prescribed format for obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 13-8-2024 from the office of the Collector, but same till filing of the instant writ petition was not supplied, hence the instant writ application has been filed for a direction upon the Collector to produce the order dated 13- 8-2024 and thereafter to quash the same.

24. The learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that during pendency of the instant writ application, the copy of the order dated 13-8-2024 was supplied to the petitioners.

Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 9/11

25. Accordingly, I.A No. 1 of 2024 has been filed seeking to amend the prayer in the writ application. It is submitted that the I.A No. 1 of 2024 has been filed for quashing the order dated 13-8-2024 passed by the Collector in Miscellaneous Ceiling Case No. 4 of 2023 (Annexure-8)

26. The I.A. No. 1 of 24 is allowed.

27. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits at the cost of repetition that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the land in dispute was declared surplus in a ceiling proceeding, subsequently the land was acquired and an award was prepared in the Year 1992. It is submitted that the award prepared in 1992 was in accordance with law, since the land was acquired under the ceiling proceeding, but once the land in dispute was released after order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 2087 of 1985, the compensation with regard to the land had to be computed in terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, on the ground that the land was the raiyati land of the petitioner but then the award prepared in the year 1992 under the Land Ceiling Act, 1961 was neither withdrawn nor fresh award was prepared. It is submitted that no doubt the petitioners under wrong legal advice filed Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 2004, which was referred under Section 18 of the L.A. Act 1894 Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 10/11 but the said reference with respect to the award was prepared in the year 1992 under the Land Ceiling Act 1961. The issue thus which arises for adjudication in the present case is whether the petitioners were entitled for compensation after release of the land in terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 or in terms of Land Ceiling Act 1961.

28. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State seeks four weeks' time for filing a counter affidavit.

29. The counter affidavit shall be duly sworn by the Collector, Madhepura. The counter affidavit, apart from giving para wise reply of the pleadings made in the writ application, shall also deal with the issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as recorded hereinabove. The counter affidavit shall clearly record that once the land was released from the ceiling case whether the compensation was to be awarded in the event of acquisition under the Land Ceiling Act 1961 or the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and if the compensation was to be given in terms of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 then why Case No. 4 of 2004 filed by the petitioners was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act when the award was prepared in the year 1992, when the land was declared surplus in the ceiling case. The counter affidavit shall also clearly record whether the Patna High Court CWJC No.15328 of 2024(3) dt.14-11-2024 11/11 learned Sub-Judge can adjudicate the Land Acquisition Case No. 1 of 2008. The counter affidavit shall further clearly aver that what would be the nature of the land after its release from the ceiling proceeding, if after release of the land from ceiling proceeding, the nature of the land becomes raiyati then whether in event of acquisition, the compensation can be granted under the Land Ceiling Act 1961.

30. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an illegality has been committed by the state authorities in not computing the compensation of the acquired land in dispute in terms of L.A. Act 1894, hence the petitioners have become entitled for compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 on the ground that for the illegality committed by the authority, the petitioners should not suffer; this issue shall also be incorporated in the counter affidavit

31. Put up this case on 19-12-2024, within top ten cases.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/-