SHIV CHANDRA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the precise stage in a land ceiling proceeding at which the land-holder may prefer an appeal under Section 30 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act ('the Act' for short) against the rejection of his objections to the draft statement published under Section 10(2) of the Act? This is the question that falls for consideration in this case.

(2.) The facts are brief and simple and can be stated as follows. The petitioners objections to the draft statement were rejected by the Collector by an order, dated 30.4.93, passed under Section 10(3) of the Act. The petitioners did not prefer an appeal within thirty days from the date of this order. The draft statement was then finally published in the official gazette and its occupy was served on the petitioners, in terms of Section 11(1) of the Act on 3.11.94. On 4.11.94, the petitioners applied for the certified copy of the order dated 30.4.93 passed under Section 10(3) of the Act. They obtained the certified copy of the order on 23.11.94 and filed their appeal on 1.12.94. Along with the memo of appeal the petitioners also filed a petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. However, on 17.12.94 a notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published in the gazette without disposing of the petitioners' appeal or even taking it for consideration. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the authorities in publishing the notification under Section 15(1) even while their appeal against the rejection of their objection to the draft statement was pending.

(3.) Section 15(1) of the Act provides that the publication of the notification in the official gazette shall be subject to any appeal or revision filed by the land holder. In that view the validity of the action of the Collector in making the publication under Section 15(1), disregarding the appeal filed by the petitioners, would depend upon the question regarding the competence of the petitioners appeal. If it is held that an appeal lay against the order passed under Section 10(3) of the Act and should have been filed within 30 days (the period of limitation prescribed under Section 30) from the date of that order, then, the petitioners' appeal was barred by limitation and the Collector might have been justified in disregarding it in making the publication under Section 15(1) of the Act. If, on the other hand, the appeal could be preferred only after the final publication of draft statement under Section 11(1) (and not before it) then the petitioners' appeal was perfectly competent and in that case the publication of the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act without disposing of the appeal would be clearly violative of Section 15(1) and would render the notification ultra vires Section 15(1) and liable to be quashed on that ground.