SHEOBACHAN GIRI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioners pray for the quashing of Annexures 2 to 6, orders passed under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 19S1 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). It may be stated that the present proceeding under the Act, which was started by the Subdivisional Officer, Sitamarhi, being Case No. 1 Bhu. Ha. of 1973-74, was a second proceeding under the provisions of the Act after the recent amendments. The earlier proceeding was initiated in the year 1969-70 being Case No. 1 of 1969-70.

(2.) In the earlier proceeding, it was held that the family of the petitioner, namely, the petitioner himself, his wife, sons, daughters and daughter-in-law, together did not hold land in excess of the ceiling as then prescribed, the order having been passed on 30-12-1971. After the amended Act lowering the ceiling and introducing the concept of family was enacted, the present proceeding has been started. Several objections were taken in that proceeding including the objection regarding the maintainability of the second proceeding. There was also objection in relation to the classification of lands. The other dispute between the parties was whether some of the members of the family were major or minor on the appointed day. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, has held that the second proceeding was entertainable in law. He, however, remanded the case for reconsideration of the question of classification as also re-determination of the question of majority or minority of some of the petitioners in the light of the observations made in his judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions in this court. He contended firstly that the decision in case No. 1 of 1969-70 was a bar to the initiation of the present proceeding. He next contended that the remand order in so far as the determination of the question of age is concerned was erroneous in law, as it amounted to permitting the State to adduce evidence, which it had not adduced earlier. This could not be done.