TASLIM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the scope of enquiry by the State Government or the Collector in an application under Section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (for short "the Act"), and what does expression "if it thinks fit" under Section 45-B of the Act, connote and when can this Court grant interim stay in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the interim stay is in respect of the land, for which proceedings are pending at the initiative of the vendees under Section 45-B of the Act, are the short questions for determination in this writ petition filed by the vendees, the Petitioners, seeking the relief for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2, Collector, Purnea to dispose of the application of the Petitioners under Section 45-B of the Act, and to exclude the plots of land purchased by the Petitioners by the sale deeds dated the 23rd June, 1973, 8th September, 1979, 4th April, 1973 and 22nd of June, 1973 from the operation of the ceiling proceedings and not to disposses the Petitioners from the plots in dispute till their application before the Collector or the State Government under Section 45-B of the Act is disposed of.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the proceedings under the said Act were initiated and Ashok Kumar. Mandal, Kaushik Mandal and Gautam Mandal, including their father, the land-holders filed objections under Section 10(2) of the said Act with the averment that their plots including lands in dispute need not be declared surplus, inasmuch as they did not hold land in excess of the ceiling area, as indicated under Section 5 of the Act. The land-holders led evidence to prove their cases but ultimately it was held that the land-holders had surplus land to the extent of 281 acres and odd as it is clear from the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act published on 7.10.1993 (vide Annexure 2 to the writ petition). As the proceedings under Section 10 of the Act were pending, the sale-deeds, in favour of the Petitioners (vide Annexure-1) were executed, as is obvious from the dates of the sale-deeds, prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 15 of the Act.

(3.) The Petitioners have now filed an application under Section 45-B of the Act before the State Government or the Collector, indicating that they are vendees under the different sale-deeds and had no opportunity to contest the proceedings which were in progress under Section 10(2) of the Act. The prayer before the Collector is that the proceedings which had been concluded and in respect of which the notification under Section 15 of the Act had been issued, be re-opened and they be afforded an opportunity to contest the matter, as after the sale-deeds in their favour they stepped in the shoes of the land-holders. These proceedings are atill pending and have not been decided one way or the other. During the pendency of those proceedings they have filed the present petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking relief as indicated above in paragraph 1 of the writ petition to the effect that the Collector be directed by a writ of mandamus to dispose of their application in respect of their claim under Section 45-B of the Act, by re-opening the matter and the land purchased by them be declared to be exempted from ceiling proceedings and further by an interim mandamus Respondents by directed not to disposses them during the pendency of the proceeding.