GANGOTRI KUER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Intervenor.

(2.) Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998, passed by the District Magistrate- cum- Collector, Kaimur (Bhabhua) in Ceiling Appeal No. 1 of 1995-96, as contained in Annexure-6 to this application, whereunder he has remanded Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1988-89 initiated against the petitioner for fresh enquiry in regard to classification of lands on the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970. Aforesaid order dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998, Annexure-6 has also been affirmed under orders dated 5.1.1999, passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Revision Case No. 13 of 1998, which is contained in Annexure-7 to this application.

(3.) By filing the present writ application, petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders dated 22.12.1997/27.4.1998 and 5.1.1999, Annexures-6 and 7 to this application on the ground that earlier the Revenue Authorities of the District, namely, the Circle Officer, Bhabhua considered the classification of the lands in question on the appointed day under his report dated 27.2.1989, Annexure-2 and recorded a categorical finding that on 9.9.1970 the lands in question had no source of irrigation and should be classified as Class III lands. Aforesaid report of the Circle Officer, Bhabhua was not accepted by the Collector, Kaimur, Bhabhua, who under order dated 27.7.1992, Annexure-3 directed for fresh enquiry by the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector, in compliance of the orders of the Collector, examined several witnesses, namely, Damodar Rai, son of Sri Krishna Rai, resident of village Diharma Khurd, P.S. Sonhan, District Bhabhua, Ramakant Upadhyay, son of Jagdish Upadhyay, resident of village Mahuat, P.S. Sonhan, District Bhabhua, Triveni Pandey, son of Late Gayatri Pandey, resident of village Karaundi, P.S. Sonhan, District Bhabhua and concluded under order dated 28.9.1992, Annexure-5 that the lands in question were without any source of irrigation on the appointed day and petitioner did not possess any surplus land on the appointed day.