DHO DHO RAJAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, AC to GP-15 for the State as also counsel for private respondent nos.5 to 27, who claim themselves to be the settlee of the lands in question in the year 1945 from the ex-landlord Sri Ram Sumran Anathnidhi Ulaw.

(2.) It appears the Collector, Begusarai under orders dated 28.12.1998, Annexure-2 relying on register-2 declared the lands in question as surplus land of the landlord/land holder Sri Ram Sumran Anathnidhi Ulaw under the provision contained in the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act, 1961. Private respondents thereafter challenged the order dated 28.12.1998 before the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Case No.10 and 11 of 1999 on the ground that Collector had no jurisdiction to look into the statements made and transactions effected prior to 22.10.1959 and relying on the certified copy of the return filed by the ex-landlord at the time of vesting of the estate the Board of Revenue under order dated 9.8.1999, Annexure-3 set aside the order of the Collector, Begusarai dated 28.12.1998. Perusal of order of the Board of Revenue dated 9.8.1999, Annexure-3 indicates that heavy reliance has been placed on the certified copy of the return which was rejected by the Collector on two grounds, namely, that return did not match the entries made in register-2 and other ground that return was not signed by the ex-landlord and the officers on every page. Learned Board of Revenue while analyzing the contents of the return observed that it was not mandatory for the landlord or the officers to sign the return on every page.

(3.) Petitioners challenged the order dated 9.8.1999 passed by the Board of Revenue by filing the present writ application on 22.12.1999 in which private respondent nos.5 to 27 appeared before admission of the case and under orders dated 8.2.2001 this Court granted them liberty to challenge the order dated 28.12.1998 passed by the Collector before the appellate authority as without availing the remedy of appeal they had directly approached the Board of Revenue in Case No.10 and 11 of 1999 against the order dated 28.12.1998 passed by the Collector. In terms of the provisions contained in the Act against the original order passed by the Collector of the district appeal is maintainable before the Divisional Commissioner but ignoring the Divisional Commissioner private respondents directly preferred Revision Case No.10 and 11 of 1999 before the Board of Revenue.