MAHANTH RAM MILAN GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay, S.C.-3 (Ceiling) for the State.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.11.1996 passed by the S.D.O., Hathua in Ceiling Case No. 85/161 of 1973-74, Annexure-1, whereunder he has been allowed one unit without permitting him to exercise the right of option under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The order has been affirmed by the Collector, Gopalganj under order dated 24.06.1998 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 1/97, Annexure-2 as also in revision by the Board of Revenue under order dated 11.03.1999, Annexure-3. Petitioner is questioning the three orders on the ground that he was served notice of the ceiling proceeding on 7.12.1995, as is evident from the receipt appended as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit but before service of the notice of the ceiling proceeding on the petitioner verification of the land was made by the revenue authorities behind his back and the verification report is violative of Rule 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") as interpreted by the High Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Co. Pvt. Ltd. Majhaulia and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in A.I.R. 1973 Patna 47 (V 60 C 16), whereunder this Court having considered the provisions of the Act and the Rules held that the verification of the land is required to be made by the authorities in presence of the land holder after notice to him but from the findings recorded by the S.D.O., Hathua in his order dated 28.11.1996, Annexure-1 itself it would appear that the verification of land was made by the authorities not in presence of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further assailed the three orders on the ground that without permitting the petitioner to exercise the right of option to choose the lands which he wanted to hold within his ceiling unit the authorities have published the Gazette under Section 15 (1) of the Act acquiring the surplus land which is violative of Section 9 of the Act and this Court should at least allow him the liberty to choose the land.

(3.) During hearing of the writ petition learned counsel for the petitioner conceded the position that if he is allowed right to exercise option to choose the lands, he is ready to give up his submission about fresh verification of the lands in-question. In view of the concessation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is directed that petitioner be allowed the right to exercise his option to choose lands allocated to the petitioner within his ceiling unit under Section 9 of the Act.