CHHABILERAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition is assailing the order passed by the SDO on 20th April, 1983; order P-3 passed by Collector, Hoshangabad on 26.9.1983 and order P-5 passed by the Board of Revenue on 1.10.1985.

(2.) PROCEEDING of ceiling was initiated against the petitioner under M.P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. Petitioner submits that petitioner is the head of joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his brother Jalamsingh and his third brother Chhotelal. Chhotelal has died 2 years prior to filing of the writ petition leaving behind one widow Baijayantibai, one son and six daughters. There has been no partition in the family. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner's joint Hindu family holds lesser land than the ceiling limit. However, the SDO has declared the area as surplus treating it to be comprising in Khata of petitioner as an individual. Initially the matter travelled up to the Board of Revenue; Board of Revenue as per Order P-1 dated 15th March, 1979 remanded the matter for making an enquiry into the fact that whether other members of the family were having a right in the land which has been treated individually that of petitioner. Annexure P-2 objection was filed by the petitioner before the competent authority that land belongs to joint Hindu family and there has been no partition between them.

(3.) FOR the last 17 years no return has been filed by respondents. However, the orders are perused. Perusal of the remand order indicates that the case was remanded to the competent authority SDO to make an enquiry into the fact whether the land was held by joint Hindu family. Thereafter SDO has not made an enquiry as was directed in the order of remand P-1; SDO has satisfied himself by observing that since no objection has been filed by family members of the petitioner and holder has filed the objection; it was rejected. Merits of the claim of the petitioner have not been considered by the competent at hority as well as by the Collector or the Board of Revenue despite the fact that the matter was remanded with a specific direction to make a detailed enquiry; detailed enquiry ought to have been made and finding on the question of fact ought to have been recorded after issuing notice to the interested persons who were shown by the petitioner.