BABBAN PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have come to this Court for quashing the order dated 25th July, 1985 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in Ceiling Revision No. 184 and the order dated 11th May, 1985 passed by the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'said Act').

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, in the year 1974, a proceeding under the provisions of the said Act was started in the court of Additional Collector, Ceiling, Rohtas being Ceiling Case No. 1558 of 1974. -75 against Sri Dashrath Singh, father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2. Aforesaid Dashrath Singh filed his return stating therein that there was no surplus land in his family. The Anchal Office of Nokha reported that the petitioners held 14.36 acres of land out of which 4.78 acres of land is Class -I land and 9.58 acres of land is of Class -III. The Anchal Office, Kargahar reported that the petitioners family held the entire 28.41 acres of land in the Kargahar Anchal out of which 11.21 acres of land was Class -I land, 16.91 acres of land was Class -III land, 0.24 acres was Class IV land and 0.05 acres of class -V land. On the basis of the said report, the respondent Additional Collector by his order dated 30th October, 1975 dropped the proceeding of Case No. 1558 of 1974 -75 holding therein that there was no surplus land held by the petitioner's family. A copy of the said order is Annexure -2 to the writ application. Petitioner's further case was that another Additional Collector, Ceiling Sri I.D. Ram took charge and he reopened the case on 15th April, 1976 and by his order dated 16th September, 1976, he declared 14.28. 1/2 acres of land of petitioners family as surplus without any fresh material on record which order was also illegal and without jurisdiction. A copy of the said order is Annexure -3 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the landholder Dashrath Singh, father of petitioner no. 1 preferred an appeal challenging the validity of re -opening and declaring the surplus land. The said appeal which was filed before the Collector was allowed in terms of order dated 30th March, 1977 whereby the Collector set aside the entire order passed in the ceiling proceeding against the petitioners holding that all orders dated 17th December, 1975 were without jurisdiction and further ordered to reopen the case. A true copy of the order dated 30.3.1977 is Annexure -4 to the writ application. Dashrath Singh, father of petitioner no. 1 then filed Ceiling Revision no. 440 of 1977 in the court of respondent no. 2 Additional Member, Board of Revenue who by his order dated 5th July, 77 upheld the order of reopening passed by respondent no.

(3.) A copy of the said order is Annexure -5 to the writ application. Dashrath Singh father of petitioner no. 1 then filed a writ application in this Court and the same was dismissed and the order of Collector and the Additional Member, Board of revenue were upheld. Petitioners' further case was that thereafter ceiling proceeding against the father of petitioner no. 1 got reported and without following the facts on the record and law involved in this case. the Additional Collector by his order dated 9th February, 1983 declared 0.37 acres of land as surplus in the petitioners' family and accordingly gazette Notification was made on 22nd March, 1983 declaring 37 decimals as surplus. A copy of the said order dated 9th February, 1983 and the gazette Notification are Annexure -6 and Annexure -6/A respectively to this writ application. Against the said order, no appeal or revision was filed by the State Government. However, the private respondents filed an application before the Collector on 20th September, 1983 which was treated as ceiling appeal no. 4 of 1984. Petitioners' father appeared in this case and filed his rejoinder to the said application. The respondent no. 3 Collector Rohtas, after hearing the parties, by his order dated 11th May, 1985 set aside the order dated 9th February, 1983 and upheld the order dated 16th September, 1976 whereby 14.28 1/2 acres of land was declared as surplus. Petitioners' further case was that during the pendency of this ceiling appeal no. 4 of 1984, the father of petitioner no. 1 died and without substituting these petitioners as party to it, the order was passed by the Collector. However, against the order dated 11th May, 1985 (Annexure -8) passed by the Collector, petitioners filed Ceiling Revision No. 184 of 1984 in the court of respondent no. 2 challenging the validity and jurisdiction of the respondent no. 3 in passing the impugned order. The respondent no. 2 Member, Board of Revenue without appreciating the point of law and jurisdiction of respondent no. 3 in passing the impugned order, dismissed the case on 25th July, 1985. A copy of the said order is Annexure -9 to the writ application. 3. No counter affidavits have been filed either by the respondent State or by the private respondents.