BALDEO PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.P. Ambastha for the petitioner, and Mr. Abbas Haider, JC to GP-III. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9.11.1999 (Annexure 5), passed by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 47/96, whereby he has rejected the revision application of the present petitioner under Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) This arises out of land ceiling proceedings under the Act and the petitioner is the land-holder. He seems to have a large family and claimed a large number of units in the land ceiling proceedings on the ground that they were major on 9.9.1970. At the initial stage, he was granted 7 (seven) units. At a later stage of the proceeding, the petitioner was allowed 17 (seventeen) more units. The petitioner claimed 14 more units, over and above the aforesaid 24 units, which was rejected by the learned Collector of the district of West Champaran. The land- holder had preferred Revision Case No. 78/86 before the Board of Revenue assailing the Collector's order dated 20.9.1995, passed in Appeal Case No. 59/85-86. The same was allowed by the Board of Revenue and the matter was remitted to the learned Collector to consider the petitioner's claim for 14 more units over and above the 24 units already granted to him by the learned Additional Collector by his earlier order dated 10.6.1985. The Board of Revenue had directed for ossification report.

(3.) Accordingly the Medical Board was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Civil Surgeon who had examined 12 persons produced by the petitioner. The petitioner did not produce two out of fourteen persons and it was, therefore, presumed that the two persons have given up their claim. In so far as the 12 persons are concerned, they were subjected to X-ray and ossification test. On the basis of such materials the Civil Surgeon submitted his report dated 21.7.1995 (Annexure 3) wherein it has been found that three of the 12 persons were below 40 years of age on the date of the report, namely, 21.7.1995. In other words, the three persons were minors on 9.9.1970 which has been accepted by the learned Collector of the district as well as the Board of Revenue in the impugned order, Their cases have not presented any difficulty and go out of the consideration. In so far as the remaining 9 persons are concerned, the Civil surgeon has stated in the report that they were above 40 years of age on 21.7.1995, and has stated that such ossification report may have the possible margin of error of one to two years. This report has to be read with the deposition of the Civil Surgeon before by the learned Collector, copies whereof are marked Annexure 3/1 to the report. On a consideration of the materials on record and the evidence of the Civil Surgeon, the learned Collector of the district passed the order dated 20.9.1995 (Annexure 4) in Ceiling Case No. 59/85-86, rejecting the claim of the 12 persons for extra units. The petitioner challenged the same by preferring Revision Case No. 47/96 which has been rejected by the impugned order.