HARICHANDRA THAKUR Vs. ANCHAL ADHIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.4.1985 passed by the learned single judge in C.W.J.C. No. 274 of 1980, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed. In the said writ petition, the appellants had, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders contained in Annexure-2, 6 and 8 of the writ petition.

(2.) The facts of this case lies in a very narrow compass. It may be borne in mind that, in the writ petition, there were three petitioners, namely, Jugal Kishore Thakur (Petitioner No. 1) his son Harichandra Thakur (petitioner No. 2) and Mostt. Gulab Devi (petitioner No. 3), while the instant appeal has been filed by Harichandra Thakur as appellant No. 1 and Mostt. Gulab Devi as appellant No. 2. The case of the writ petitioners, inter alia, was that the land in question, which was the subject matter of a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), belonged to these three persons having one-third share each. According to the petitioners, although petitioner No. 2 was major aged about. 19 years, he was shown as minor aged about 10 years and no enquiry was ever made with regard to this age. It was further alleged that, after the draft statement was published, the petitioners came to know that there was interpolation in the first verification report showing the age of petitioner No. 2 as 12 years on 1.9.1974. It was also alleged in the writ petition that no notice was ever served on petitioner No. 2 who was legally entitled to one unit as he was major. The Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, by his order dated 8.7.1975, declared 3.96 acres of petitioner's land as surplus. The petitioners, thereafter, made a grievance before the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer, who, after entertaining the application and after calling for a report from the Circle Officer, came to a finding that appellant No. 1 (petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition) was aged 19 years and he was entitled to one unit-vide his order dated 4.9.1976 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). By the said order, the Additional Sub-divisional Officer rescinded his earlier order declaring the land as surplus. It was stated in the writ petition that the so-called judicial order dated 4.9.1976 was set aside by the Sub-divisional Officer by his order dated 16.8.1979 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). The petitioners thereafter moved the Board of Revenue who refused to admit the revision application.

(3.) A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent State stating, inter alia, that the writ petition as also the relief claimed therein were misconceived. Initially, no return Was filed by the petitioners after the Gazette notification dated 31.5.1973, Later on, a notice was issued on 2.1.1974 to file return and on 13.2.1974, petitioner No. 2 submitted his return and, on verification, it was found that the total land held by petitioner No. 1 was 34.70 acres of Class III lands. On 6.7.1974, petitioner No. 1 was noticed to give the age of his son who was shown to be 10 years old on 6.7.1974, the date of verification, but petitioner No. 1 did not produce any material to prove the age of his son and, accordingly, a final order was passed on 8.7.1975 and, after allotting two units, 8.96 acres of land was found to be surplus. An objection was filed by petitioners 1 and 3 under Section 10 of the said Act which was rejected. It was further stated that, after complying all the formalities, final publication was made and the land was declared surplus which was followed by acquisition for its distribution.