RITOO MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioners -appellants, aggrieved by the order dated 15.4.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 292 of 1995 dismissing the writ application, have preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present appeal are that a land ceiling proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was initiated against the landholder Ashik Tiwari. In the said proceeding the landholder at the first instance was not found to be in possession of land in excess of the ceiling area. However, later on, notice was given to him and he was found entitled for two units of land. A draft statement as contemplated under Section 10(1) of the Act was published. Thereafter the draft statement was finally published in accordance with Section 11 of the Act. Ultimately by notification dated 28.12.1982 as published in the district gazette dated 21.1.1983, 34.18 acres land was declared as surplus. Steps were taken for distribution of surplus land and that led to registration of a separate proceeding i.e. Land Settlement Case No. 2 of 1982 -83. Part of the land declared surplus was settled and parwana issued in favour of the appellants on 23.3.1983. The purchasers from the landholder assailed the aforesaid notification declaring the land surplus by filing writ application before this Court, which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 1463 of 1983 (Birendra Mishra and Others vs. The State of Bihar and Others). The landholder, aggrieved by the declaration of surplus land, also preferred writ application before this Court, which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 1092 of 1983 (Asik Tiwari vs. The State of Bihar and Others). In the writ application filed by the purchasers, namely, C.WJ.C. No, 1463 of 1983, the validity of the notification declaring the land to be surplus under Section 15(1) of the Act was in question.

(2.) A learned Single Judge of this Court (S.B. Sinha, J. as he then was) by order dated 4th of February, 1993 allowed the writ application, quashed the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act and while doing so, it observed as follows: -

(3.) IN view of the liberty given, the landholder preferred the appeal and the Collector remanded the matter to the Additional Collector. After remand, the landholders, daughter -in -law and his three sons claimed further units. The Additional Collector allowed three units to the landholder and further excluded from the land of the landholder, 5.89 acres of land having been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. In sum and substance, the Additional Collector did not find land in excess of the ceiling area.