TAKDHAR NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India the petitioners have attacked the validity of the orders passed by the Collector Madhubani under Section 45(b) of the Bihar land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Land Ceiling case No. 13/11 of 1973 -74 by which the Collector has re -opened a proceeding which was finally concluded earlier. The aforesaid land ceiling case was initiated against the petitioners and notices issued under Section 8 of the Act, in pursuance of which they filed their return. Later on a joint draft statement was also served under Section 10(1) of the Act and on the objection filed by them, the matter was enquired into and finally it was held that the petitioners did not hold land in excess of the prescribed ceiling and the proceedings in question finally concluded on 21st June, 1976.

(2.) It appears that subsequently thereafter some anonymous letter was written to the Collector of the area making various allegations against the Dy. Collector Incharge Land Reforms and further stating that the petitioners made suppression of facts and the correct return was not filed by them. From the order impugned dated 1.8.1978, as contained in annexure'2' filed along with the application, the Collector on being satisfied, reopened the proceeding and remanded the case to the Sub -divisional officer, Sadar Madhubani for disposal according to law. The order impugned has been attacked solely on the ground that the Collector should have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioners and should not have acted suo motoon such anonymous letter filed before him.

(3.) learned Counsel for the State Sri C.K. Sinha, on the other hand, has contended that Section 45(b) of the Act confers jurisdiction on the Collector to re -open a proceeding already concluded, if he finds reasons for the same and so far as the instant case is concerned, it has been further canvassed that a wrong order was obtained by the petitioners suppressing material facts and in submitting wrong return showing that the lands possessed by them are within the ceiling limit and in this context learned Counsel Sri Sinha has further argued that there does not appear to be any violation of natural justice on the part of the Collector in re -opening the matter, which has been done in a most bona fide manner.