HARENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The meaningful questions formulated and referred for an authoritative decision by the Full Bench are in the terms following :

(2.) The facts giving rise to the questions aforesaid are undisputed and lie in a narrow compass. Harendra Prasad Singh, writ petitioner, is a land holder of village Manglapur, district East Champaran. A proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Ceiling Act") was initiated against him sometime in the year 1976. The proceeding, as is not unusual, dragged on for some years. Whilst it was pending and before the petitioner"s objection under section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act could be disposed of, the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act (Bihar Act 55 of 1982) (hereinafter to be referred to as the "Amending Act") was enacted and enforced by publication in the Bihar Gazette on the 30th of April, 1982 in substitution of its predecessor Ordinances. This Amending Act, like the earlier Ordinances, was to come into force retrospectively with effect from the 9th of April, 1981 and, apart from many significant changes in the existing Statute, it, inter alia, inserted sections 32A and 32B in the parent Act. The latter provision provided that every pending proceeding, which is not the subject matter of appeal, revision or review, and in which final publication under sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Ceiling Act, as stood before the amendment had not been made, shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the Ceiling Act. Despite this provision, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, completely ignoring the same, and without any fresh determination, proceeded to issue a notification in terms of old section 11(1), which was admittedly done on the 31st of May, 1982. However, the Additional Collector, under section 32B of the Ceiling Act, initiated fresh proceeding against the petitioner and issued a draft statement under section 10(2) of the said Act and further called upon the petitioner to file objection, if any, in terms of section 10(3) of the Ceiling Act. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the same.

(3.) This writ petition originally came up for hearing before a Division Bench presided over by my learned Brother, Uday Sinha, J. Before that Bench particular reliance was placed on the cases of Smt. Sudha Devi and Umashankar Prasad Sah (supra) for the proposition that the final publication under the unamended sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Ceiling Act having been made even though after the enforcement of section 32B, the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceeding and decide the matter afresh in accordance with the amended law. Entertaining some doubts about the correctness of the ratio in the aforesaid case, the matter was referred to a Full Bench for an authoritative decision on the questions formulated and that is how it is before us now.