JAGDISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Amrita, S.C.-1 (Ceiling) for the State.

(2.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur in Ceiling Appeal No. 08/1991-92, Annexure-9, whereunder learned Collector has refused to exclude the lands of the petitioners detailed in Paragraph-6 of this petition from the ceiling proceeding initiated against father of Private Respondent No. 6 although 0.65 decimals of land of Village- Kanhai Gyan Singh stood recorded in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners in cadastral Survey Khatiyan, Annexure-1 and 44 decimals of land of Village- Yadavpur was purchased vide registered sale-deed dated 4.9.1947 by Harihar Singh, father of the petitioners from Ram Pujan Singh. Petitioners are further aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.1999 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 15/98, Annexure- 10, whereunder the Board of Revenue also affirmed the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur and refused to exclude the lands detailed in paragraph-6 of this petition from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the lands detailed in paragraph-6 of this petition has been recorded in the cadastral survey Khatiyan in the name of their ancestors, namely, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh and the cadastral survey Khatiyan of the said land is contained in Annexure-1 to this application which would indicate that the lands in-question pertain to Khata No. 11 of Village- Kanhaiya Gyan Singh and Khata No. 26 of Village- Yadopur and it is recorded in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh. In this connection it is pointed out that the common ancestor of the petitioners is Ram Sahay Singh who had four sons, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh, Dulam Singh. Petitioners belong to the branch of Gurdayal Singh, who had three sons, namely, Ram Sunder Singh, Rajpati Singh and Raja Singh. Ram Sunder Singh had one son, Radha Singh who had also one son, Harihar Singh and Harihar Singh had two sons, namely, Jagdish Singh and Sheojee Singh who are petitioner nos. 1 and 2. During the revisional survey and the consolidation proceeding the lands in-question were wrongly recorded in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 and no sooner petitioners learnt about such erroneous recording they filed their objection before the Consolidation Officer, Bihiya which was numbered as 93 of 83-84/ 126 of 90-91 in which father of Private Respondent No. 6 was noticed to appear who appeared and conceded the position that the lands of Village- Kanhaiya Gyan Singh stood recorded during the cadastral survey in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners and the land of Village- Yadopur was purchased by Harihar Singh, the father of the petitioners vide registered sale-deed dated 4.9.1947 which would be evident from the cadastral survey Khatiyan which is in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely, Gurdayal Singh, Haliwant Singh, Saheb Singh and Dulam Singh and the sale deed dated 4.9.1947 and in appreciation of such fair stand taken by the father of Private Respondent No. 6 the consolidation authorities passed order dated 17.1.1991 directing that the Register of Land be corrected and the lands in-question be recorded in the name of the petitioners. During the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 a report dated 10.8.1977 was submitted by the Block Development Officer, Bihiya stating that the lands in-question are in possession of the petitioners but it appears the report of the Block Development Officer, Bihiya as also the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 17.1.1991 was ignored and the father of Private Respondent No. 6 was taken as the raiyat of the lands in-question. No sooner petitioners learnt that the lands detailed in Paragraph-6 of this petition have been wrongly shown in the draft statement published during the ceiling proceeding in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 they filed their objection before the Collector under the Act placing reliance on the rent receipt dated 28.3.1957, 30.3.1956, 26.1.1962 and 27.8.1954, report of the Block Development Officer, Bihiya dated 10.8.1977 and the order passed by the Consolidation authorities. The authorities ignored the submission of the petitioners and declared the lands as surplus land of the father of Private Respondent No. 6, whereafter petitioners filed their objection which was also rejected by the Collector under order dated 03.01.1998, Annexure-9 passed by the Collector which was affirmed by the Board of Revenue under orders dated 24.03.1999, Annexure-10. The two orders dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 9 and 10 have been assailed by the petitioners in the instant case on the ground that the authorities while passing the order refusing to exclude the lands detailed in Paragraph-6 of this petition from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 have not only ignored the report of the Block Development Officer Bihiya dated 10.08.1977 which was submitted after making local inspection and having found possession of the petitioners over the same but also ignored the order of the consolidation authorities preceded by an enquiry and having found the possession of the petitioners over the lands should have been excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6.