NALINI RANJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are involved some common questions arising out of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962), hereinafter referred to as the parent Act, and the amendments made therein by virtue of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Bihar Act I of 1973) hereinafter referred to as the amending Act. Hence, this common judgment. Before setting out of the points raised at the Bar and the questions involved, it is worthwhile to state the facts relating to each of the two applications separately. C. W. J. C. 1040/74

(2.) Petitioner No. 1, Nalini Ranjan Singh, is the husband of petitioner No. 2, Shrimati Usharani Singh, and the father of petitioner No. 3, Padmanabh alias Chetan, a minor. Petitioner No. 1 had a number of co-sharers all descending from his father Rukmini Raman Singh. In 1956 petitioner No. 1 instituted title suit 45 of 1956 in the Court of 1st Munsif, Sitamarhi, for declaration of title and recovery of possession with mesne profits in respect of some lands allotted to him as a result of partition in the joint family against his father Rukmini Raman Singh. On the 28th of June, 1956 a compromise de cree was passed by which a previous partition amongst the co-sharers and petitioner No. 1 as also his father Ruk mini Raman Singh was recognised and affirmed. On the 6th of September, 1962 petitioner No. 1 made a gift of 42.671/2 acres of land to his wife, petitioner No. 2, by a registered deed and her name was duly mutated in the revenue records of the State. She hag been paying rent to the State as also agricultural income-tax as sessed from time to time. On the 31st of March, 1966 petitioner No. 1 transfer red 57.391/2 acres of land to petitioner No 3 by a private partition in the family of the petitioners. Petitioner No. 3 was thereafter duly mutated and rent is being paid on his behalf to the revenue autho rities of the State. Upto the 22nd of June, 1968 by some registered sale deeds petitioner No. 1 sold 9.35 acres of land to different persons and 1.03 acre of land was acquired by the State Government for seed multiplication. After the exclusion of the aforesaid lands, petitioner No. 1 was left with 52.931/2 acres including culturable land and orchards. On the 3rd of October, 1970 the Deputy Collector, Sitamarhi, respondent No. 3, issued a notice (Annexure 1} to petitioner No. 1, which was received by him on the 17th of October, 1970, requiring him to submit a return by the 27th of October, 1970 with regard to the lands held by him. Petitioner No. 1 prayed extension of time which was granted and within the time extended he duly submitted a return in ceiling case 7 of 1970-71. After due enquiries and on a consideration of all the facts and circumstances including the affidavits filed on behalf of petitioner No. 1, final order in the case was passed on the 29th of April, 1971, a copy whereof has been marked Annexure 2. That order is a rather long one and the operative portion thereof runs thus--

(3.) There are seven petitioners in "this case. Petitioner No. 1 Harinandan Yadav is the husband of petitioner No. 7 Shri-mati Sharda Devi. Their son Santan Kumar alias Vijoy Kumar Yadav is petitioner No. 2 and petitioners 3 to 5 Shri-mati Shyam Kumari, Shrimati Krishna Kumari and Shrimati Ratan Kumari are the married daughters of petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 6 Roshan Kumar is the daughter of petitioner No. 4, i. e., the daughter's daughter of petitioner No. 1. In 1961' petitioner No. 1 filed partition suit 29 of 1961 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Madhipura, against this co-sharers. On 9-7-1973 a compromise decree was passed. Out of the share allotted to petitioner No. 1, he made a gift of a portion to petitioner No. 6 by registered deed. He also gifted 10 acres of land to a high school at Hardi. About 8 acres of land were further gifted by petitioner No. 1 to his two daughters by registered deeds. These transfers, it is alleged, were made in consonance with the provisions of Section 5 of the parent Act. It is furtrer alleged that petitioner No, 7 got 29 acres of land as stridhan from her father-in-law. It was looked after by, and was under the management of, petitioner No. 1 but petitioner No. 7 is said to have always enjoyed the usufructs thereof. All the co-sharers recognised, her stridhan property by specifically mentioning it in Schedule 3 of the compromise decree of the partition suit aforementioned. A notice under Section 8 of the parent Act was issued to petitioner No. 1 to submit a return by the Deputy Collector Incharge Land Reforms, Supaul, respondent No. 3. A return was duly submitted by petitioner No. 1 claiming that he held no land in excess of the ceiling area. Respondent No. 3 continued the proceeding in ceiling case 679 of T973-74 and on the report of the Anchal Adhikari. Tribeniganj, respondent No. 4, he, by his order dated 14-5-1975 (Annexure 1), held that petitioner No. 1 held land to the extent of 26.25 acres belonging to Classes II, III and IV. It was further held that petitioner No. 1 was entitled to only one unit. By conversion of the different classes of lands in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the parent Act as amended by the amending Act, Petitioner No. 1 was held entitled to 19.27 acres only and he was further held as having been in possession of 106.78 acres in excess of the ceiling area. Petitioner NO 1 was directed to surrender the excess land. The aforesaid order has been marked Annexure 1 as stated above. On 16-6-1975 order of final publication under Section 11 of the parent Act, which had undergone no change despite the amending Act, was passed a copy whereof has been marked Annexure 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that petitioners 2 to 5 are entitled to hold different units of ceiling areas separately on his or her own right and, therefore, allotment of only one unit was bad and that the classification of land made in Annexure 1 was arbitrary. It has further been alleged that petitioners 3 to 7 were not served with any notice at any stage although separate Jamabandi were running in the names of petitioners 3, 5, 6 and 7. A prayer has accordingly been made for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing Annexures 1 and 2 aforesaid and directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing the provisions of the amending Act as also Bihar Act IX of 1973.