MOHAMMAD FAKHRUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application has questioned the legality of an order passed by the Deputy Collector in-charge Land Reforms, Katihar (hereinafter referred to as the 'D. C. L. R.') in purported exercise of powers conferred on him by the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), by which he has declared 6.16 1/2 acres of lands belonging to the petitioner as surplus under the provisions of the Act, on a finding that the lands of the petitioner being Class III lands, the petitioner was entitled to retain only 25 acres. A copy of the said order is Annexure "2" to the writ application. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Collector, who called for a report from the Block Development Officer, Balrampur, The Block Development Officer submitted a report on the 13th January, 1975, regarding the nature of the lands possessed by the petitioner. The respondent Additional Collector, however, without proper consideration of the said report, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the finding of the D. C. L. R. A copy of the said order is Annexure "1" to the writ application. A copy of the report of the Block Development Officer has also been annexed to the writ application and marked as Annexure "3".

(2.) According to the petitioner, the finding of the Additional Collector (respondent No. 3) and the D. C. L. R. (respondent No. 4) regarding the nature and classification of the lands in question is erroneous, and, on a proper appreciation of: the legal position, they should have accepted the contention of the petitioner that the lands in question are Class IV lands and the petitioner was entitled to retain 30 acres in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has in this connection drawn attention to the aforesaid report of the Block Development Officer (Annexure "3"). Towards the end of the said report the Block Development Officer has stated that the lands belonging to the petitioner are cultivable, but there is no arrangement for irrigation. According to learned counsel, the Block Development Officer, V having reported that there was no arrangement for irrigation, should not have stated that, in spite of that, the lands are of Class III. In this connection learned counsel placed Section 4 of the Act which fixes the ceiling area of different categories of lands. Section 4 has been amended from time to time. On the relevant date, by the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1973 (Bihar Act IX of 1973), Section 4 had been amended and after that amendment the ceiling had been fixed on the basis of six classes of lands. Section 4 reads as follows: