KUMAR KRISHNA RASTOGI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, claiming to be land holders, within the meaning of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") have filed this writ application challenging the orders dated 26.4.1989 passed by Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar in Board Revision No. 275 of 1988 (Annexure 22), dated 30.5.1988, passed by Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram, in Ceiling Appeal No.15 of 1988 (Annexure 21) and dated 14.1.1988, passed by Additional Collector, Rohtas, in Ceiling Case No. 64 of 1982/61 of 1985 (Annexure 15).

(2.) SARJU Madhav Rastogi of village Sakari, P.S. Kudra, District Rohtas left behind his widow, Malti Rastogi, petitioner no.5, four sons, Kamal Krishna Rastogi, Hare Krishna Rastogi, Ajay Krishna Rastogi and Vijay Krishna Rastogi, petitioners 1 to 4 and two daughters, Manju Bala Rastogi and Madhu Bala Rastogi, petitioners 6 and 7. Kamal Krishna Rastogi got two sons, Hari Om Rastogi and Hari Prakash Rastogi, who are said to have been bom respectively on 3.1.1956 and 9.2.1958.

(3.) THE land holder, Sarju Madhav Rastogi, contested the proceeding. He challenged classification of lands and claimed exclusion of lands already (i) gifted to his two daughters, (ii) acquired by Government for construction of canal and additional Ceiling units for his other three sons, who were major on the appointed date under the Act and additional Ceiling unit for his two minor grand sons. Against the decision of Collector under the Act, the landholder preferred Ceiling Appeal No. 54. of 1975 -76, under Section 30 of the Act before the Collector, Rohtas and thereafter Board Revision No. 897 of 1996 was filed by him, under Section 32 of the Act, before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. The Revisional Court by order dated 9.6.1976, Annexure 1 held that land holder 'sfamily was entitled to five Ceiling units, one for himself and four units for his four sons, who were found major on 9.9.1970. His claim for two separate ceiling units for two married daughters was refused. Lands under the proceeding were held to be class II and Collector under the Act was directed to exclude the land, if any, acquired by government.