MAHENDRA NATH CHAUDHURI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Petitioners raise a grievance against the notification dated 31.8.2004, issued under Section 15 (1) of the Land Ceiling Act, arising out of land ceiling proceeding bearing Ceiling Case No. 2/84-85 State v. Prem Kishori Devi. The said notification is Annexure-2. Genealogy table has been set out in para 5 of the writ petition. It appears that Baidyanath Chaudhuri was the Son of Late B. Chatranath Chaudhari who was the Son of Late Babu Budhhinath Chaudhari. Babu Budhhinath Chaudhari had two sons. Petitioner No. 1 is grandson of Late Taraknath Choudhary, whereas Petitioner No. 2 is the granddaughter-in-law of aforesaid Taraknath Choudhary being daughter-in-law of Karmanath Chaudhuri. It is the stand of the Petitioners that in the year 1956 itself there was a partition by way of a registered deed whereby certain lands were allocated to the share of Late Taraknath Choudhary (son of Budhhinath Chaudhari). It is further the case of the Petitioners that 6.86 acres of land located in Mauza-Mohammadpur, appertaining to Khata No. 202, Plot No. 1681 were acquired by way of a registered sale deed executed in the year 1965. The grievance of the Petitioners is that, without initiating any land proceeding against them or their ancestor (Late Taraknath Choudhary) the lands owned by them have been acquired and notification in terms of Section 15 (1) of the Act have been issued acquiring those lands.

(3.) It appears, a land ceiling proceeding was initiated against one Bardeshwari Devi Chaudhari (widow of Babu Chatranath Chaudhari), being and Ceiling Case No. 76/73-74. Another and Ceiling Case No. 77/73-74 was initiated against Most. Prem Kishori Devi Chaudhari Wife of Late Baidyanath Chaudhari, who was the Son of Chatranath Chaudhari. Returns were filed on behalf of aforesaid landholders namely, Bardeshwari Devi and Prem Kishori Devi Chaudhari in the aforesaid land cases separately. On the basis of returns, enquiries were made and after verification of the genealogy, it was found that the landholder (s) was/were entitled to only two units. Out of 363.1 and 1/2 acres of lands possessed by the family, certain lands were found surplus. It appears that final notification in respect of the lands declared surplus could not be made. In the meanwhile the Act was amended and by reason of Sections 32 (A) and 32 (B) of the Act, all the proceedings stood abated, and fresh proceeding was initiated from the stage of Section 10 of the Act. Accordingly, Land Ceiling Case No. 2/84-85 was started against Most. Prem Kishori Devi Wife of Late Baidyanath Chaudhuri, Village-Durgaganj. A total area of 430.61 and 1/2 acres of land was shown possessed by the family and, as such, certain lands were found surplus in their hands and accordingly notice was issued to aforesaid Smt. Prem Kishori Devi. On notice, aforesaid Prem Kishori Devi filed returns/ objection giving details of the land available/possessed by the family. Further enquiry and verification was made by the concerned authorities under the Ceiling Act in presence of landholder. Records of rights-of the land standing in the name of Late Bardeshwari Devi Chaudharien and Prem Kishori Devi were also perused. After conclusion of the enquiry as provided under the Act, Respondent-Additional Collector directed for issuance of notice to the public at large. After issuance of such notice the Circle Officer also made spot verification and it was found that recorded tenants Smt. Renu Chaudhari Wife of Late Karmanath Chaudhuri alongwith other members, namely, Sheshnath Chaudhuri and other held some lands in the village. Those lands were also treated to be the lands belonging to the landholder (s) and included in the proceeding. On a consideration of the entire matter brought on the records of the said proceeding, 156.73 and 1/2 acres of land were found and held surplus in the hands of the landholder (s) and impugned notification under Section 15 (1) of the Act (Annexure-2) was issued and published after deducting the lands to which the la.ndholder (s) was/were found entitled to. This was preceded by notification issued in terms of Section 11 (1) of the Act. Said notification issued under Section 15 (1) of the Act (Annexure-2) has been impugned in the present application.