PANDIT GOVIND PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are aggrieved by the several orders which have been passed by the ceiling authorities which are contained in Annexure -1, Annexure -2 and Annexure -4 to the writ application. Their case is that they are Purohits of one Hiralal Sah 'sfamily and for their long association with the family in that capacity by virtue of a registered deed of gift dated 6.9.1962 Jugal Prasad Sah gifted 1 bigha, 13 kathas and 3 dhurs of land. Petitioners thereafter came in possession of the land. Necessary entries were made in the revenue records and even rent thereafter came to be paid by them. They continued to be in occupation and possession of the land without any hitch and hindrance. The problem arose when a land ceiling case no. 4 of 1975 was initiated against the family of Hiralal Sah. It seems that family had substantial chunk of land with many family members but based on the report of the Circle Officer even the piece and parcel of land which was gifted to the present petitioners was declared as surplus by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bagaha. Appeal came to be filed against the order in question contained in Annexure -1 by other family members of Hiralal Sah which included appeal even by these petitioners. But then all the appeals were dismissed on the ground that appellants were dilly dallying and not producing the necessary records and were trying to delay the distribution of surplus land and therefore appeals were dismissed on this ground alone. The legal battle therefore travelled to the Board of Revenue where a petition under Section 32 of the Ceiling Act came to be filed while invoking the revisional jurisdiction.

(2.) THE Court is not concerned with the issue with regard to the branch relating to Hiralal Sah. The matter is confined to the present petitioners who are before this Court. They are aggrieved because none of the authorities below considered their case independent of their claim and assertion and even the Additional Member, Board of Revenue in his order in gross violation of the provisions of the settled law on this issue contained in Section 5(iii) of the Ceiling Act has clubbed the land in question with the land of Hiralal Sah 'sfamily and declared it as surplus.

(3.) KEEPING in view the provision of law as well as interpretation given to Section 5(iii) of the Act in the two decisions noted above, the Court has no hesitation in recording that at no point of time any exercise had been carried out either by Sub -Divisional Officer -cum -Ceiling Authority or the Collector in appeal in this regard. There is no finding recorded in so far as the claim or the case of the petitioners is concerned. If no finding has been recorded and the gift deed has not been annulled while exercising power under Section 5(iii) then it is not understood as to how land in question has been ordered to be declared surplus in the hands of the original landholder. The Court does notice that the case of the petitioners has been . dealt with by Additional Member, Board of Revenue in the revisional order contained in Annexure -4 but here also only a passing reference has been made with regard to the nature of the said gift deed but that by itself may not be enough to annul a registered gift deed and club the land in the hands of the original land holder and declare it as surplus.