SHEIKH SADIQUE Vs. COLLECTOR SAHARSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners pray to quash the notification under Section 15 (1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), as contained in Annexure-3. acquiring 37.89 Acres of lands showing them as belonging to the petitioner No. 1, as well as the other dated 29-6-1983 as contained in Annexure-4 passed by the Collector, Saharsa (Respondent No. 1) dropping Misc. Ceiling Case No. 43 of 1982-83/29 of 1983-84 on account of absence of the petitioner.

(2.) Land Ceiling Case No. 278 of 1976 was started by the Additional Collector Saharsa (Respondent No. 2) against petitioner No. 1 for determining his ceiling areas. The draft statement was published in regard to 55.27 acres of lands. Petitioner No. 1 filed objection under Section 10 (3) of the Act, as contained in Annexure-1. One of the objections was that he had gifted 25.57 acres of lands by registered deeds of gift dated 17-3-1972 to petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 within the time granted under the Act and that the transferees had got their names mutated and that their names were also recorded in the current survey. The objections were disposed of by the Collector Saharsa (respondent No. 1) by his order dated 11-4-1982, who declared 37.89 acres of land as surplus. Petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 were not served with notices. The petitioners Nos. 2 to 6 filed an appeal before the Collector, Saharsa under Section 37 read with Section 45 of the Act. They also filed an application under Section 45-B of the Act for re-opening the case which was registered as Land Ceiling Misc. Case No. 43 of 1982-83/29 of 1983-84 which, however, was dropped by order as contained in Annexure-4 without deciding in on merit. An application has also been filed on behalf of five persons praying to add them parties to this writ petition claiming title in the lands in question.

(3.) Mr. Rajeeva Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that respondent No. 1 has committed an error of law in passing his order as contained in Annexure-4. The proceeding ought not to have been dropped rather adjudicated on its merit. He further submits that the said case, in fact, was an appeal which could not have been dismissed for default.