ASHOKKUMARSINGHABHADEVIARUNKUMARSINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three applications involving common questions of fact and law and are taken up together for hearing and being disposed of by common judgment.

(2.) Petitioners of all these cases claimed their independent right, title and interest. Their names have been entered in the survey settlement records of right which was published prior to 22-10-1959. According to the petitioners, they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar. However, their land ceiling proceedings were initiated against Anand Prasad Singh and his grand son Sanjay Kumar Singh. Both the aforementioned land ceiling proceeding were amalgamated However, in the draft statement published in terms of Section 10 (2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') the lands of the petitioners |have been included. Objection was filed by the petitioners alleging therein that the names of their fathers had been entered in the revision survey records of right and their names also had been entered in Register II maintained by the State of Bihar. The said objection of the petitioners was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 25-5-1986 (Annexure-2), holding, inter alia, that the petitioners have not been able to prove that they had made any arrangement for irrigation of the said land and they are not resident of the district as also that they have not proved as to how their names have been entered in the survey settlement record of rights.

(3.) However, a separate proceeding under Section 5 (i) (iii) of the Act was initiated as against the petitioners. In the said proceeding, according to the petitioners, no evidence was adduced by the State to rebut the presumption of correctness in the entries in survey settlement records of right as contemplated under Section 103-B of the Bihar Tenancy Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer acting as Collector under the said Act by reason of an order dated 22-7-1985, wrongly stated in the petition 6-10-1983/8-10-1983 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application directed exclusion of the land 'of the petitioners and to hold inquiry under Section 5 (i), (iii) of the said Act.