KAMAL NAIN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ petitions is directed against the order dated 29.7.1991, passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No.80 of 1990 (State of Bihar vs. Maharani Durgeshwari Sahi & Others), passed in purported exercise of powers under section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area & Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The revision application, in its turn, was directed against the common order dated 26.6.1990, passed by the learned Commissioner of Saran Division, Chapra, in Case No.39 of 1985-86 and analogous appeal(s). It arises out of land ceiling proceedings. CWJC No. 3217 of 1992 is at the instance of the land holders, deity, and some of the transferees. The remaining writ petitions are at the instance of the other transferees.

(2.) WE shall draw the basic facts from CWJC No. 3217 of 1992. Land ceiling proceedings were initiated against petitioner nos. 1 and 2, and was registered as Ceiling Case no.243/3 of 1973-74. Petitioner no.1 filed returns of the land held by herself/family. After following the prescribed procedure, three units were allotted to the land-holder(s). The matter ultimately reached the learned Commissioner of Saran Division at Chapra. There is no need to go into the meandering course of the litigation before the learned authorities under the Act, and before this Court. The matter was ultimately decided by the learned Commissioner by the order impugned before the Board of Revenue, whereby he substantially allowed the claim of the land-holder(s) and the transferee(s) which led to the aforesaid Revision Case No.80 of 1990, before the Board of Revenue at the instance of the State of Bihar. The learned Member has out-right rejected some of the claims which had been allowed by the learned Commissioner. In other words, the revision application of the State of Bihar has been substantially allowed by the learned Member, the order of the learned Commissioner has been set aside, and the claims for exemption have been rejected after discussing the materials on record and assigning convincing reasons. These are issues of facts, and the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction would be reluctant to interfere with the same in a situation where we are convinced with the discussion in the impugned order. Therefore, for the reasons assigned in the impugned order, we uphold disallowance of such exemptions.