AWADH BIHARI 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-7, whereunder learned Collector has refused to exclude the lands of the petitioners detailed in Schedule-I and II of this application from the ceiling proceeding initiated against father of 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. 15/98, Annexure-8, whereunder the Board of Revenue also affirmed the order dated 03.01.1998 passed by the Collector, Bhojpur and refused to exclude the Schedule-I and II lands 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 Schedule- I and II 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 appertain to Khata No. 8 and 85 of Village- Yadavpur and Khata No. 11 of Village- Kanhai Gyan Singh 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 Haliwant Singh who had seven sons, namely, Ram Lagan Singh, Hira Singh, Ram Brichh Singh, Butani Singh, Sukhari Singh, Manogi Singh and Jadunandan Singh. Ram Lagan Singh had three sons, Dhanukdhari Singh, Kedarnath Singh, Awadh Bihari Singh. Kedarnath Singh and Awadh Bihari Singh are petitioner nos. 2 and 1. Hira Singh had one son, Sri Ram Singh who had two sons, namely, Shambhu Singh and Bishambhar Singh who are petitioner nos. 3 and 4. Butani Singh had one son, Ram Ayodhya Singh who is petitioner no. 7. Sukhari Singh had two sons, Brij Bihari Singh and Chhathu Singh, who are petitioner nos. 5 and 6. Manogi Singh himself is petitioner no. 8. Jadunandan Singh had four sons, namely, Bibhishan Singh, Lallan Singh, Deomuni Singh and Sheoji Singh who are petitioner nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12. During the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6 a report was submitted by the Block Development Officer, Bihiya that the lands are in possession of the petitioners but it appears the report was ignored as from the Register of Lands published during the consolidation proceeding it appeared that the father of Private Respondent No. 6 was the raiyat of the lands in-question. No sooner petitioners learnt that the lands detailed in Schedule- I and II have been wrongly shown in the Register of Land published during the consolidation proceeding in the name of the father of Private Respondent No. 6 they filed their objection before the Consolidation Officer, Bihiya which was registered as Case No. 220/1990-91 in which notice was issued to the father of Private Respondent No. 6 who appeared and conceded the position that the lands have been erroneously recorded in the Register of Land in his name as he is not the raiyat of the lands 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. The Consolidation Officer under order dated 26.12.1990 allowed the objection of the petitioners directing correction in the Register of Lands so as to include the name of the petitioners as the raiyat of the lands in-question. During the land ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respoindent No. 6 the ceiling authorities neither accepted the report of the Block Development Officer, Bihiya dated 10.08.1977 about the possession of the petitioners over the lands in- question, Annexure-4 nor did they rely on the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 26.12.1990 on the ground that the same was passed on the basis of the compromise between the petitioners and the father of Private Respondent No. 6. The rent receipts dated 21.12.1962, 31.3.1964 and 27.2.1966 contained in Annexure-2 was produced by the petitioners before the authorities to establish that they are in cultivating possession of the lands in-question. During the revisional survey proceeding the lands detailed in Schedule-I and II 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 Case No. 61 of 1975 in which notice was issued to the father of Private Respondent No.6 who 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 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 10.8.1977 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 10.8.1977 and declared the lands as surplus land of the father of Private Respondent No. 6, whereafter petitioners filed their appeal which was also rejected by the Collector under order dated 03.01.1998, Annexure-7 and the Board of Revenue rejected the revision filed against the said order under orders dated 24.03.1999, Annexure-8. The two orders dated 03.01.1998 and 24.03.1999, Annexures- 7 and 8 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 and II 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 finding the possession of the petitioners over the lands and in the light of the findings contained in the report and the order the lands should have been excluded from the ceiling proceeding initiated against the father of Private Respondent No. 6.