RAM SUMARI DEVI SMT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the notice dated 19.1.1999 issued under the signature of the Addl. Collector (Land Ceiling), Gaya in Ceiling Case No. 101 of 1981 -82 (Annexure 3) whereby the petitioner has been directed to produce record and evidence before respondent No. 3 on 3.2.1999 as Ceiling Case No. 101 of 1981 -82 has been transferred by the Collector Gaya to respondent No. 3 of conducting enquiry under Section 5(i)(iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act). Further prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the order dated 21.8.1999, passed by the Additional Collector in the aforesaid ceiling case (Annexure 8) whereby 31 acres 72 1/2 decimal of land situated in village Kamaldah, Anchal Paraiya, District Gaya have been declared ferzi belonging to the Bodhgaya Math. Petitioner's prayer is also for restraining the respondents for dispossessing her from the land in dispute.

(3.) Petitioner claims to have purchased the land in dispute in the year 1965 from Goswami Kashi Giri and Goswami Basant Giri. In the year 1959 the vendors of the petitioner had purchased these lands from one Akbar Khan on 4.7.1959. The vendors of the petitioner were neither the Mahanth nor they had purchased these lands from the then Mahanth Sri Harihar Giri. Ceiling case No. 101 of 1981-82 was initiated against Goswami Jairam Giri, the Chairman of the Bodhgaya Trust Committee in respect of 1484.66 1/4 acres of land treating entire lands to be that of Bodh Gaya Math. In the said proceeding, objection was filed by the land holder stating that various lands belonging to the Math had been transferred to different purchasers and the Math was not in possession of these lands, already transferred. On the basis of such objection, notices were issued to various purchasers including the petitioner as to why he should not be declared Ferjidar or Benamidar of the Math and Mahanth. The show cause filed by the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter Rev. Case No. 315 of 1984 was filed by the petitioner. The Member Board of Revenue remanded the matter back to the Collector for noticing all the parties concerned and disposing of the matfer in accordance with law. On remand the Collector by his order dated 19.10.1991 dismissed the appeal holding that the Mahanth Bodh Gaya had transferred the lands in violation of the trust deed of the year 1932. Against this order revision was preferred by the petitioner which was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred CWJC No. 4997 of 1993. In this writ application it was stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the lands with regard to which the notice was issued to the petitioner was also the subject matter of another land ceiling proceeding which was started against the husband of the petitioner. In that proceeding this land has been allotted in the unit of the land holder i.e. the husband of the petitioner. Now going against that finding the revenue authorities can not hold that the petitioner is Farzidar of Mahanth and the sale deed which was executed in favour of the petitioner by Goswami Kasi Giri and Goswami Basant Giri. it was also contended that the vendors of the petitioner had purchased this land from one Akbar Khan on 4.7.1959 i.e. prior to 22.10.1959. In this view the revenue authority have no jurisdiction to come to a finding that it was a farji transaction as the transaction held in the year 1959 can not be annulled the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner in the year 1965 could not have been treated as farzi and annulled. This Hon'ble Court in paragraph 10 of the judgment passed in CWJC No. 4997/93 it was held that "in view of the fact that a land ceiling proceeding against the husband of the petitioner had been initiated, the petitioner could not have been deprived of the said land again without reopening the aforesaid land ceiling proceeding in relation whereof an order has already been passed. For the reasons aforementioned, this application is allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 3, 5 and 6 are quashed."