DADAN RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the "parcha holders", who are in possession of the land in question, have any right to be heard in a proceeding arising out of Section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") is the only question to be decided in this appeal.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 14.9.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 1545 of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed the L.P.A. filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and order dated 24.11.197 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12036 of 1996 arising from a proceeding under Section 45-B of the Act.

(3.) The Ceiling (surplus) proceedings bearing Ceiling Case No. 149 of 1973-74 were initiated against Nand Kishore Tiwari, respondent No.8 herein and a notice to the said effect was issued to him under Section 6(1) of the Act in Form LC-1 as prescribed under Rule 5 under the said Act and respondent No.8 submitted a return under the said Act in respect of his entire land, total 19 acres 71 decimals. The aforesaid land was found to be owned and possessed by the family as defined in Section 2(ee) of the said Act i.e. land holder, respondent No.8, his wife Sumitra Devi and their two minor children as on appointed day i.e., 9.9.1970 and ultimately the authority concerned by holding 15 acres of class I lands was permitted to be retained by respondent No.8 under Section 5(1) and the remaining 4.64 acres of land were declared as surplus. Final publication of draft statement under Section 11(1) of the said Act was accordingly made and subsequent to that a notification under Section 15(1) was also issued on 15.1.1993. Against the said notification, respondent No.8 filed an appeal under Section 30(1)(b) of the Act before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna bearing Ceiling Appeal No. 160 of 1994. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal on merits. Dissatisfied therewith, a Ceiling Revision was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna which was also dismissed. Writ Petition filed for quashing the earlier orders was dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently another writ application which was filed in the High Court by respondent No.8 herein and the same was disposed of with a direction to raise the matter before the Collector of the District within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order. However, no such application was filed by respondent No.8 before the District Collector, therefore, after the expiry of said such period, the High Court"s order became infructuous. The wife of respondent No.8, namely, Sumitra Devi filed an application before the District Collector for re-opening the case under Section 95-B of the Ceiling Act and the same was dismissed. Challenging the order of the District Collector as well as the orders of the appellate Court which was passed in the appeal filed by respondent No.8 and the order passed in Revision application, an application under Section 32 of the Act was also filed before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and the same was finally disposed of on 12.7.1995 with a direction that the Collector shall ascertain the allegation. After final publication under Section 15(1) of the Ceiling Act, the aforesaid excess land i.e. 4 acres 64 decimals was distributed to 8 down-trodden people of the village and separate parchas were issued in name of the aforesaid eight persons and the possession was also delivered to them. The District Collector transferred the case to the Court of Additional Collector who re-opened the case, conducted the impugned proceedings in question and held that the land holder has no excess land. Accordingly, he set aside the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Ceiling Act. Respondent No.5 before disposal of the application under Section 45-B of the Ceiling Act, did not issue notice nor opportunity was given to the appellants with whom the aforesaid lands were in possession.