MUKUL JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has made the following prayers:-

(2.) The admitted fact is that a land ceiling proceedings came to be initiated against the father of the petitioner and therein upon considering the objections filed by the then landholder, an order was passed under Section 10(3) of the Act on 28.12.1986. As against the aforementioned order and the notification under Section 11 of the Act, an appeal was preferred by the landholder which was also disposed of by an order dated 25.5.1992 under the order of the Collector of the district. The matter thereafter came before the Board of Revenue and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue by order dated 26.1.1993 had affirmed the findings in the order of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the Collector of the district passed under Sections 10(3) and 11 of the Act respectively. It is, however, significant to note here that Additional Member, Board of Revenue in the concluded portion of the order which give liberty to the petitioner to exercise the option within one month of the date of the order i.e. by 20th July, 1993.

(3.) It appears that the petitioner did not/could not exercise the option within a period of one month as originally given to him under the order of the Additional Member, Board of Revenue and he came to this Court in CWJC No. 10297 of 1993 wherein this Court while upholding the order of the three authorities i.e. the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Collector of the district and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, ali of the authorities had directed that the option which was given by the petitioner during the pendency of the writ application on 22.11.1993 should be accepted and given effect to. At this stage, it would be also significant to keep in mind that Mr. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel (Ceiling) has produced the record from which it is absolutely apparent that the landholder under the signature of one Amarnath Jha on 28.11.1993 had submitted option of 90 acres and this option was taken into account while issuance of the only notification under Section 15(1) of the Act for the purposes of acquiring the surplus land. In this context, one may also refer to the order sheet of the Ceiling proceedings from which it would be clear that after the order of this Court dated 16.1.1995 directing the authorities to accept the option exercised by the petitioner was passed, an order came to be passed by the authorities on 30.9.2005 whereby and whereunder the earlier notification under Section 11(1) of the Act was sought to be revised in terms of the option exercised by the petitioner. This can be safely found in the order dated 30.9.1995 of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Madhubani.