RAMDEO YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 22-9-82 passed by respondent No. 3 in Ceiling Appeal No. 7/1983-84 (Annexure-3) and also order da'ed 27-2-84 passed by respondent No. 2 in Revision Case No. 247 of 1983 (Annexure-6) Further prayer has bsen made for a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners.

(2.) The facts of the case lies in a very narrow compass and are not much in dispute.

(3.) A draft statement under Section 10(2) of Bihar land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act. 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ceiling Act') was served upon the petitioner No 1. In the said draft, petitioner was allowed three adult units and no land for additional members in the familv was allowed Though unit was allotted to Jonaklal, Prithwhichand and Tej Narain but it is stated that no unit was allowed to eldest Ramdeo All objections were filed as required under Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act taking several points therein. By order dated 2-8-76, the respondent No 4 partly allowed the objections and rejected the rest Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred before respondent No 3 and by order da ted 18-6-1980 appeal was allowed in part. The petitioner moved the Member Board of Revenue against the order and the revision application was admitted. Subsequently, it appears that in view of 32 (A) of Ordinance No 66 of 1981 the sai.d Revision application stood abated This was the circumstances in an earlier proceeding. Case of the peiitioner further is that agagain on 8-7-82, a draft statement under Section 10 (2) of the Act was served upon ths petitioner and petitioner was allowed three adults units and no additional members in the family was allotted any unit. Although in the earlier draft statement full unit was allotted to petitioners Nos 2 to 4 but no unit was allowed to Ramdeo petitioner No. 1. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed objection under Section 10 (3) of the Ceiling Act raising various objections. Copy of the objection petition is annexed as Annexure-1. By order dated 22-9-82, respondent No. 4 partly accepted the objections raised by the petitioner but negatived the others being aggrieved petitioner filed Ceiling Appeal No. 7/83-84 before respondent No. 3, who by his order dated 22-9-83 dismissed the said appeal. Being dissatisfied the petitioner challenged the appellate order before the Commissioner, Koshi Division Saharsa being Purnea Ceiling Revision No, 97/83-84. However, subsequently the petitioner withdraw that Revision application on the ground that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to hear such revision. After withdrawal the petitioner obtained the certified copy of the order of the Collector and Commissioner and preferred Revision before the Member Board of Revenue being Revision Case No. 247/83. As the revision was time barred, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitatiou Act along with the Revision Petition explaining the circumstances in filing the revision application after the period of limitation. The Member Board of Re venue, however by its order dated 27-2-84, dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation holding that ignorance of law is no excuse particularly when the case is argued through a lawyer. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order'of dismissal has moved this Court in the present writ application.