DEOKINANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated llth December, 1984 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Case No. 39 of 1984 and also the order dated 6th August, 1984 passed by the Collector, Gaya in Ceiling Case No. 41 of 1983-84 and also the order dated 30th July, 1983/8th August, 1983 in Ceiling Case No. 70 of 1976-77 passed by the Additional Collector, Ceiling, Gaya. In the aforesaid Ceiling proceeding 52.50 acres of Class III land has been allotted to petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and 37.88 1/4 acres has been declared as surplus land.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that they filed an objection under Section 10(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) against the draft statement in land Ceiling Case No. 70 of 1976-77/ 22 of 1977- 78 under Section 10(2) of the said Act. In the said proceeding, the learned Additional Collector, Gaya by his order dated 16th April, 1980 allowed 52.50 acres of Class III lands to the petitioners and declared 37.88 1/4 acres of land as surplus. Against the said order an appeal was filed and the Collector, Gaya by order dated 25th August, 1980 in Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1980-81 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Additional Collector, Gaya. Thereafter the revision-application was filed by the petitioners before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna and the Member, Board of Revenue by an order dated 3rd July, 1981 held that in view of the provisions of Section 32-A of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 (Ordinance No. 66 of 1981), the revision-application of the petitioners stood abated and the records were sent down to the Additional Collector, Gaya for start of the proceeding afresh from the stage of Section 10 of the said Act. Thereafter the matter was again taken up by the learned Additional Collector, Gaya who issued a fresh draft statement under Section 10(2) of the said Act and to that again an objection was filed by the petitioners under Section 10(3) of the said Act and the Additional Collector, Gaya, considering the objection allotted 52.50 acres of Class III lands to the petitioners and declared 37.88 1/4 acres of land as surplus. Those orders of the Additional Collector and the Collector which were passed are challenged by the petitioners on the ground that petitioner No. 3 attained the majority on 9.9.1970 and was entitled to get one unit. In support of the aforesaid claim of majority, the petitioners produced ossification certificate granted on 19th September, 1980 by Dr. M.K. Sinha, School Leaving Certificate granted by the Headmaster of the School and an affidavit by the father. The classification of the land was also challenged and the contention of the petitioners is that the land in question are Class IV and Class VI land as there is no source of irrigation and the irrigation is totally dependent upon rainfall. The other ground of objection is that the plots of land Tribeni Singh (respondent No. 5) have been clubbed with the land of the petitioners. It appears that all these objections were considered by the Collector, Gaya, in detail in his order dated 6th August 1984 which is at Annexure 2 to this writ-petition. While considering the question of age, the Collector came to the conclusion that the School Leaving Certificate which was produced had some alteration over the original entry and the appellant was given opportunity to file the matriculation certificate. It is admitted that matriculation certificate was not produced.

(3.) During the course of submission before this Court learned Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to advance any cogent ground for non-submission of the matriculation certificate. It has no where been stated in the writ petition that the recording of fact by the Collector as wrong, namely, that the Collector did not give any opportunity to produce the matriculation certificate nor is there any averment in the writ-petition that petitioner No. 3 is not a matriculate. It is well known that matriculation certificate is a public document within the meaning of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. When an opportunity was given to the petitioners to produce the matriculation certificate by the Collector and that fact is not denied but the certificate was not produced, the obvious inference will be adverse against the petitioners. As noted above, it has not been contended in the wri- petition that petitioner No. 3 is not a matriculate. Therefore, the best available evidence has not been produced and the evidence which has been produced, namely, the school leaving certificate contains alteration. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any perversity in the approach of the Collector if he refuses to accept the school-leaving certificate when the opportunity to produce the matriculation certificate was not availed of.