RAJENDRA 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. 11,13/ 1991-92, Annexure-10, whereunder learned Collector has refused to exclude the lands of the petitioners detailed in Schedule-I of this application from the ceiling proceeding initiated against Private Respondent No. 6 on the ground that those lands were recorded during the revisional survey operation in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6. Petitioners are further aggrieved by the order dated 24.3.1999 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 22/98, Annexure-11, whereunder the Board of Revenue also affirmed the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector and refused to exclude the Schedule-I lands from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6.

(3.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that while passing the two orders dated 03.01.1998 and 24.3.1999, Annexures- 10 and 11 the Collector and the Board of Revenue have not taken into account the cadastral survey entries in regard to the lands in- question which is in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners, namely, Tulsi Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh, Jagat Singh and Most. Tuna, wife of Dhuma Singh who died issueless. To appreciate the connection of the petitioners with the aforesaid Tulsi Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh, Jagat Singh and Most. Tuna, wife of Dhuma Singh it is necessary to notice the genealogy of the family of Bala Singh who is the common ancestor of the petitioners and the aforesaid persons whose name finds mentioned in cadastral survey Khatiyan. Bala Singh had two sons, Rachia Singh and Rameshwar Singh. Rachia Singh also had two sons, Jagat Singh and Dhuma Singh, who died issueless. Rameshwar Singh had only one son, Fauzdar Singh. Jagat Singh had four sons, Ram Lochan Singh, Kalika Singh, Sidheshwar Singh and Paramashraya Singh. Fauzdar Singh also had four sons, Tulsi Singh, Jangi Singh, Lala Bahadur Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh. Tulsi Singh and Rang Bahadur Singh died issueless. Jangi Singh had two sons, Rajendra Singh and Jogindra Singh. Lal Bahadur Singh had only one son, Ramdarshan Singh who died issueless. Ram Lochan Singh had also two sons, Baleshwar Singh and Brahmdeo Singh. Kalika Singh had three sons, Kailash Singh, Ram Ashray Singh and Govind Singh. Sidheshwar Singh had one son, Munijee Singh and Paramashray Singh had two sons, Bachu Singh and Shree Nath Singh. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Jangi Singh, Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of Kalika Singh, Petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 are the sons of Paramashray Singh, Petitioner Nos. 7 and 8 are the son of Ram Lochan Singh and Petitioner No. 9 Munijee Singh @ Sri Muni Singh is the son of Sidheshwar Singh. The lands detailed in Schedule-I of the petition was recorded in the cadastral survey Khatiyan in the name of the ancestor of the petitioners Tulsi Singh, Lal Bahadur Singh, Rang Bahadur Singh, Jagat Singh and Most. Tuna, wife of Dhuma Singh and such fact is evident from Annexures 1 and 2, the copy of cadastral survey khatiyan of Village- Yadopur and Kanhai Gyan Singh. Following further evidence the petitioners produced before the authorities to establish that they are in cultivating possession of the lands in-question, namely, the canal purchas dated 23.3.1973, 29.2.1960, 2.1.1958, 4.4.1968, 19.10.1968 27.10.1969, 17.10.1969, 21.11.1970, 10.11.1971 contained in Annexure-3 series, the rent receipts dated 27.3.1963 and 30.3.1960 contained in Annexure-4 series. During the revisional survey proceeding the lands detailed in Schedule-I of this petition was recorded in the name of father of Private Respondent No. 6 petitioners filed their objection under Section 106 of the B.T. Act which was registered as 518 of 1970 and 117 of 1970 and after notice the father of Private Respondent No.6 conceded before the Survey authorities that the lands have been wrongly recorded in his name as he had no connection with the same and the revisional survey entry may be corrected in the name of the petitioners, whereafter the revisional survey authorities passed order dated 14.5.1974 and 30.4.1975, Annexures- 5/A and 6/A correcting the revisional survey records with respect to the lands in-question in favour of the petitioners. During the land ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 the Block Development Officer, Bihiya submitted report dated 30.7.1977 in Ceiling Case No. 79 of 1973-74 that petitioners are in possession of the lands in-question and the same be excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6. The authorities ignored the report dated 30.7.1977 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-10 and the Board of Revenue under orders dated 24.03.1999, Annexure-11. The two orders dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 10 and 11 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 Schedule-I 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 survey authorities preceded by an enquiry and having found the possession of the petitioners the lands should have been excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6.