DHRUB NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 23.3.1978 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Palamau, in purported exercise of powers under Section 45 B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, and also the order dated 30.12.86 passed by the Addl. Collector, Palamau, in Land Ceiling Case No. 64/1973 74 and the subsequent orders dated 2.11.1987 and 21.6.1987 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Palamau, and the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are as follows: In the year 1973, a ceiling proceeding was initiated against the petitioners in Land Ceiling Case No. 64(5)/73 74 and notices were issued by the Land Reforms Dy. Collector, Palamau, in response whereof, the petitioners appeared and filed returns. The Deputy Collector, Incharge Land Reforms, by his order dated 22.3.75 declared that the petitioner No. 2 Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Singh, is major and accordingly two units were allowed to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. A copy of the order dated 22.3.75 is Annexure 1 to this writ application. The petitioner's further case is that after about 5 years, the respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, without notice to the petitioners, by an order dated 23.3.1978 under Section 45 (B) of the Act, reopened the Land Ceiling Case No. 64/5/73 74 and forwarded the case to the Addl. Collector, Land Ceiling, Palamau, for disposal. A copy of the order dated 23.3.78 passed under Section 45 B of the Act is annexure 2 to this writ application. It is stated that the respondent No. 4, the Addl. Collector, Palamau after hearing the parties, by his order dated 30.12.86 held that the petitioner No. 2 was minor on the appointed dated and as such he is not entitled to any unit. The petitioners after that moved the Dy. Commissioner in appeal who by order 2.11.1987 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Addl. Collector. The petitioners then moved the Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, in revision which was numbered as Case No. 213/87 and the Learned Member, Board of Revenue, by order dated 21.6.1989 partly allowed the revision and directed the authorities to make certain modifications with regard to exemption claimed by petitioner No. 1. The stand of petitioner No. 1 is that the petitioners actually held 25.06 acres of Class IV Land as 41.40 1/2 of class VI land in Bishrampur Anchal and they also held 9.57 1/2 of class IV land in village Khorta in Garhwa Anchal. According to the petitioner, they are entitled to 96 acres of class VI land and as such the petitioners did not hold land beyond the ceiling.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Merathia, Learned Government Pleader No. II, firstly submitted that the power conferred under Section 45 B of the Act is in the nature of suo moto revision and, therefore, exercise of powers by the State Government or the Dy. Commissioner is not restricted by any provision of the Act. It is submitted that power can be exercised irrespective of the fact whether the order passed in the ceiling proceeding was assailed by the State of Bihar in appeal or revision. Leaned counsel drew my attention to the order passed by the Incharge court of the Land Reforms Dy. Collector as contained in Annexure 1 and submitted that from the very perusal of the order, it would appear that the authority concerned, without examining the matter and without satisfying itself with regard to the claim of majority of Pradeep Kumar, passed order in a mechanical way declaring petitioner, No. 2 as major. According to the Earned Counsel the Dy. Collector, therefore, rightly reopened the proceeding under Section 45 B of the Act and there is no infirmity in the said order. Earned Counsel then submitted that after proceeding was re opened by the impugned order of the Dy. Commissioner, the petitioner instead of challenging that order appeared before the Addl. Collector and participated in the proceeding justifying that the original order (Annexure 1) passed by the Land Reforms Dy. Collector was legal and valid. In such circumstances, earned Counsel submitted that once petitioners submitted to the jurisdiction of the court and participated in the proceedings without challenging the reopening of the proceedings, the petitioners are estoppeled from challenging the said order of the Dy. Commissioner at a later stage. On the question of merit of the claim of the petitioners, learned G.P. II submitted that although the petitioner produced certain certificates on the point of the majority of the petitioner No. 2 but the author of those documents or maker of the certificates have not been examined, nor any cogent evidence was produced before the authority to show that on the relevant date, the petitioner No. 2 was major. The earned Counsel lastly submitted that the finding arrived at by the Addl. Collector was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner and also the Member, Board of Revenue, after reappraisal of the evidence and, therefore, the concluded findings of fact cannot be decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.