SIYARAM DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether S.45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 mandates that the decision afresh of a proceeding disposed of by a Collector under the said Act must be done by the State Government or by the authorised Collector of the district alone - is the significant question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench. Primarily at issue is the correctness of the view in Kesara Devi v. State of Bihar, 1984 Pat LJR 209.

(2.) Mahanth Siyaram Das, Petitioner No. 1, is the Shebait of Bancholha Math at Bancholha, which is a public trust registered as such under the provision of the Bihar Hindu Religious Trust Act, 1951. The Math aforesaid owns lands and other agricultural properties for religious purposes. It is the case that during the absence of petitioner No. 1 on pilgrimage in the years 1973 to 1975 one Mahanth Manmohan Das used to look after the affairs of this Math and in the said period nearly 13 acres of the Math property were declared surplus in the ceiling proceedings held under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The petitioners thereafter preferred a petition under S.45B of the Act before the Collector of Saharsa praying for reopening the case and deciding it in accordance with law, but the same was dismissed in default. The matter was then carried to the Board of Revenue and the Additional Member of the Board set aside the order and directed the Collector of the district to hear the parties on merits. It would appear that on the bifurcation of the district the matter was transferred to the Collector of Madhipura who, in turn, sent the petition to the Sub-divisional Officer, Madhipura, for disposal afresh. The latter, after hearing the petitioners, declined to vary the previous order or to reconsider the matter about the classification of the lands in question and the grant of one unit to the deity installed in the Math. The petitioners thereupon appealed to the Collector of the district who upheld the order. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that under S.45B of the Act the Collector of the district alone could hear and decide the matter afresh and had no jurisdiction to transfer the same to the Sub-divisional Officer and consequently the orders are void and without jurisdiction.

(3.) When this case came up for admission before the Division Bench, firm reliance was placed on Kesara Devi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1984 NOC (Pat) 289) (supra) for contending that the District Collector had no jurisdiction to refer the matter for disposal to any subordinate authority under S.45B. Expressing some doubts about the correctness of the decisions aforesaid the matter was referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration and that is how it is before us.