MAYABATI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA There are two petitioners in this case. Beradar Choudhary, petitioner No. 2 is the son of Lakshmi Choudhary against whom a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was started by the Collector, Begusarai, respondent No. 2 giving rise to Ceiling case No. 3/6 of 1974-75 and subsequently it was transferred to the Additional Collector, Begusarai, respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 1 Mayabati Devi claims to be the widow of Lakshmi Choudhary, in other words the mother of petitioner No. 2.

(2.) The proceeding in question was started against petitioner No. 2 only who filed a return on 7.8.1975 in pursuance to a notice under Section 8(1) of the Act issued to him. In the said return, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to this writ application, he has also appended a genealogical table as schedule 'Gha' showing petitioner No. 1 as hrs mother and still alive. The petitioners have stated that in spite of that fact being brought to the notice of respondent No. 3, the Additional Collector, although an order was passed on 7.8.1975 for making a verification by the Anchal Adhikari, Motihari (respondent No. 4) no verification was made by respondent No. 4 in presence of the petitioners nor did they receive any notice of any verification. It is apparent from the records and the order sheet of the case that before the verification report, if any, was received in pursuance of the order dated 7.8.1975, a draft statement under Section 10 of the Act was signed by respondent No. 3 and ordered to be served upon petitioner No. 2 but it was actually never served upon him. No objection having been filed under Section 10(3) of the Act, the final publication of the draft statement was made by respondent No. 3 and ultimately Gazette notification was published under Section 15 of the Act on 1.6.1976 declaring 22 acres 861/2 decimals of land as surplus Then petitioner No. 2 was served with a copy of the final statement aforesaid, filed a petition before respondent No. 3 on 21.6.1976 (Annexure-5) raising various objections and claiming a review of his case. We are not concerned with the details of these objections. As the Act does not contemplate a provision for review by his order dated 29.6.1976 respondent No. 3 rejected the application aforesaid. Thereafter the petitioners filed another application (Annexure-7) on 28.7.1976 before him regarding the case of petitioner No. 1, who was also physically produced before him for his verification along with certain documents such as Gram Panchayat register, copies of voters' list etc. This petition was also rejected by order dated 22.11.1976 (Annexure-8) by respondent No. 3. The petitioners, therefore, have come to this Court.

(3.) It may be mentioned that earlier sub-Section (3) of Section 15 of the Act contained a provision for filing objection by any person claiming interest in the land specified in the notification of the final publication. But this provision has been deleted by Bihar Ordinance No. 219 of 1976 on 2.11.1976. Petitioner No. 1, therefore, had no statutory right to put forward her claim before any of the revenue authority and, therefore, we considered the contentions raised on her behalf by the learned Counsel in great detail.