HARICHARAN CHAMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are twenty three petitioners in this case. They seek quashing of the order of the Collector, Kaimur at Bhabhua dated 16.8.99 in Miscellaneous (land ceiling) case No. 57 of 1998 -99, cancelling the Red Cards relating to the lands of late Ramayan Ojha declared surplus under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short 'the Ceiling Act'). The relevant facts, briefly stated, are as follows:

(2.) Land Ceiling case No. 5/76/74 of 1973 -74/1974 -75/1982 was initiated against late Ramayan Ojha for determination of his ceiling area under the Ceiling Act. The land -holder was allowed three units for self and two sons namely, Harihar Ojha and Suryabansh Ojha by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR) Bhabhua exercising the powers of the Collector under the Act. The State of Bihar preferred appeal before the Collector, Rohtas challenging the correctness of grant of unit to Suryabansh Ojha. The appeal was allowed and unit to Suryabansh Ojha was deleted. The land -holder preferred revision before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed. He then came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2208 of 1989. During the pendency of the case he died whereafter his three sons, namely, Harihar Ojha, Suryabansh Ojha and Kapilmuni Ojha were substituted and they prosecuted the writ petition. By judgment and order dated 12.11.98, the impugned order of the Collector deleting unit to Suryabansh Ojha was set aside. The matter, however, was remitted back to the Collector to take a decision with respect to the Red Card -holders with whom the surplus lands had been settled in the meantime. On remand, the Collector held that the lands had been settled on the basis that the family of the land -holder was entitled to only two units as per the decisions of the appellate and the revisional authorities but as third unit had been allowed to Suryabansh Ojha, there was no surplus land left which could be settled. He accordingly directed the Sub -divisional Officer to cancel the Red Cards. He, however, observed that as letters patent appeal against the judgment and order in C.W.J.C. No. 2208/89 was pending, in case the appeal is allowed and the High Court decides against the land -holder, the settlement made with them will stand restored. The. Red -Card -holders have come to this Court challenging the correctness of the said order of the Collector.

(3.) Shri Ganga Prasad Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order has been passed under a wrong premise that three units have, been allowed to the land -holder. He contended that the grant of unit to Suryabansh Ojha did not make any material difference because Ramayan Ojha had died during the pendency of the writ petition and therefore, the unit allowed to him did not survive. He submitted that unit cannot be allowed to a dead person and where a person to whom the unit has been allowed dies during the pendency of the proceeding, the lands falling within his unit would devolve upon his heirs in terms of the provisions of Section 18 of the Ceiling Act. In support of the contention, he placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Rao Shyam Rao Deshmukh and Krishna Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1998 (3) PLJR 179. He also submitted that LPA No. 1336 of 1998 preferred by the Red Card -holders, i.e., the petitioners herein has been admitted by this Court for hearing which means that the petitioners have prima facie case and therefore, during the pendency of the letters patent appeal, the Collector should not have cancelled the settlement.