DILRANI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present intra-Court appeal is against the judgment and order dated 20th of April, 2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWJC No 7569 of 1999, whereby the writ petitioners/appellants ' challenge to the agriculture land ceiling proceedings and the orders passed therein by the authorities thereunder, were not interfered by the Writ Court except granting the writ petitioners opportunity to exercise their right of option under Sec. 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act).

(2.) It appears that an Agriculture Land Ceiling Proceeding Case No 95 of 1975-1976 was started by the Additional Collector, Munger against the writ petitioners/appellants under the provisions of the Act. As is usual, the proceeding prolonged. Draft publication having been made in terms of Section 10 of the Act, objections were invited. Various objections were taken by the writ petitioners/appellants significant being that at the time and in the lifetime of their father prior to this agriculture land ceiling enactment, in the year 1947, there had been a partition in the family through Court in which lands were allotted to lady members in the family. Thereafter, the father gifted certain lands by registered deeds to his grandsons. Various claims were made as per the law then existing. It may be noticed here that in 1970, the Ceiling Act underwent drastic changes. From the concept of individual landholders, it now became family as a unit. Petitioners/appellants had a right to make certain claims as per entitlement under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. The matter was finally adjudicated and final orders were passed by the Additional Collector on 08.11.1982 accepting certain points and not agreeing with other points, and, substantial agricultural lands were declared surplus. It appears that thereafter, on 16.11.1982, notification under Sec. 11 (1) of the Act was issued and presumably Sec. 15 notifications also issued thereafter. Being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.1982, as passed by the Additional Collector, petitioners/appellants filed Appeal No 68 of 1982-1983 before the District Collector, Munger which was dismissed by order dated 03.09.1984. Being aggrieved by the appellate order, a revision, as prescribed under Sec. 32, was filed before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Revision Case No 29 of 1985. The learned Member, Board of Revenue set aside the orders and, by his order dated 15.04.1986, remanded the matter to the first Court that is the Additional Collector for redetermination. Thereafter, on 19.03.1988, the Additional Collector redetermined the matter upon remand giving certain reliefs but not all the reliefs, as sought for by the writ petitioners/appellants. Being aggrieved by this order, as passed by the Additional Collector on 19.03.1988, an appeal was filed being Appeal No 2 of 1988 before the District Collector, Munger which was dismissed on 20.01.1997. Again being aggrieved, a revision was filed being Revision Case No 63 of 1997 before the Board of Revenue which was heard and dismissed on 17.05.1999. Challenging that order, the writ petition was filed being CWJC No 7569 of 1999. which was dismissed on 20.04.2010 with a liberty granted to the writ petitioners to exercise fresh option with regard to retaining agricultural land in their holding. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Writ Court, this intra-Court Appeal has been filed.

(3.) As before the Writ Court so before us in appeal, Shri Baxi SRP Sinha, learned Senior Counsel has urged that in view of Sec. 32B of the Act, as brought in by the 1981 amendment ordinance with effect from 09.04.1981 which ordinance was then replaced by Amendment Act on 30.04.1982, the authorities were in fact obliged to restart the proceedings afresh. In other words, the proceedings, that had been initiated in the year 1975-1976, and in which draft notification under Sec. 10 having been issued, objections were being considered, all that exercise had to be done afresh after the ordinance had come. The only exception was where prior to the amending ordinance being promulgated, if notifications declaring surplus land under Sec. 11 (1) of the Act had already been passed, those proceedings would not be effected by the amendment. The learned Single Judge, though noted the submissions, did not decide the same, in view of the fact that as per the learned Single Judge, facts were not clearly pleaded in this regard. We have gone through the records and all the facts, as we have noted above, are available on the Writ Court record itself. All these dates are there in the Writ Court records itself. Only thing that was needed is patience to peruse the records.