DURGA PRASAD BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 9.1.2004, passed by the respondent Collector in Misc. Ceiling No. 192 of 1992, whereby the district Collector invoking the powers conferred upon him under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), has re-opened the land ceiling proceeding and transmitted the record to the court below him for re examination adjudication of the validity of the grant of two units to the land-holder (the petitioner). A bare perusal of impugned order would show that the respondent Collector has taken a view that the two reports submitted in the proceeding by the revenue authority so far as the age of the son of the land-holder (writ petitioner), Pradip Kumar Bhagat, was seemingly at variance. It is to be noted here that the land-holder was allowed two ceiling units as his son Pradip Kumar Bhagat was held to be major on 9.9.70.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of the present writ petition may be indicated. Land ceiling proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Land Ceiling Case No. 1720 of 1973-74 in respect of close to 76 acres of land reportedly held by him. A notice to file return under Section 8 of the Act was accordingly served on the petitioner to which the petitioner filed objection. It appears that the claim for grant of two units besides exclusion of certain lands gifted to his daughter within the permissible statutory period (sometime in the year 1963) was allowed. Verification report submitted in the case did indicate that the son of the petitioner was 21 years of age on 9.9.70. It appears that subsequently a second report was also called for. The same was submitted. The two verification reports are on record as Annexures 1/2 and 1/3. In the second report also which was submitted in the year 1989 the son of the petitioner was shown aged about 38 years. On a consideration of the materials on record, the ceiling case was finally disposed of by the Collector under the Act by order dated 30.7.99. There is no dispute that subsequent thereto notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was also published on 16.8.90. The land-holder was allowed two ceiling units and no surplus land was found with the land-holder. The State did not prefer any appeal. About two years thereafter, a notice was issued on the petitioner calling him upon to show-cause as to why the land ceiling proceeding earlier concluded be not re-opened. The petitioner challenged the same before this Court in CWJC No. 6400 of 1992. This Court by order dated 16.2.93 (Annexure 3/1) disposed of the same. The operative portion of the order reads thus:

(3.) While assailing the impugned order, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the reasons assigned by the respondent Collector for re-opening of the proceeding is/are not sustainable in law. Respondent Collector has taken a view that there was/were seemingly difference in the two verification reports already on record with respect to the age of the son of the petitioner, which necessitates reopening of the case. It is thus contended that the concluded ceiling case has been re-opened only to take a possible different view based on the materials already on record of the case (in the present case, two verification reports).