DHARNIDHAR THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this letters patent appeal, the impugned order dated 27.3.1996 is challenged.

(2.) THE short facts leading to this appeal are as under : Under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Lands) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). proceedings have been initiated against the appellant -vide Ceiling Case No 242 of 1983 -84 ____________ 77 of 1983 in which in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(2) of the Act draft statement was issued declaring 94.35 acres of land of Class III land. Despite filing of objection and claiming 4 units, i.e. one for himself and 3 units for his major sons, one unit was allowed to the appellant by order dated 28.8.1986 and total area admeasuring 68.9 1/2 acres was declared as surplus land and accordingly Notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act was issued. Against the said Notification, the appellant adopted recourse of challenging the said Notification in appeal and revision, etc. However, it appears that during the pendency of the appeal/revision before the appropriate authority, the surplus land was allotted in favour of the respondents by virtue of which, it is alleged, they came in possession in accordance with the respective area of allotment order. However, it appears that ultimately the appellant's revision was allowed and the order dated 28.8.1986 passed by the revenue authority and confirmed by the order dated 4.8.1987 by the appellate court was set aside by the Board by order dated 6.6.1989 and the case was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the provisions of Section 32 -B of the Act. Thus, in accordance with the provision of Section 10(1) of the Act, the matter was considered afresh and after giving due weight -age to the direction given by the Board of Revenue in accordance with the provisions of the Act fresh Notification under Section 11 (1) of the Act was published on 14.12.1990. This also appears to have been challenged by the appellant. However, the appeal by order dated 23.12.1992 was dismissed.

(3.) IT is contended that the classification of the land and right of option given by the appellant was not taken into consideration. The revision also met the same fate by order dated 7.4.1993. It is submitted that during the pendency of the revision without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of option of retaining the land, the order was passed refusing the prayer.