ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the first round of litigation the original appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition challenging the order of the Revisional Authority passed under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.

(2.) While disposing of the said writ petition a Division Bench of this Court noted that the Revisional Authority recorded in its order that the main issue between parties is classification of the land held by the original appellant. The Division Bench further found as a fact that the order of the Revisional Authority does not address the said issue at all. The Division Bench, thus, remitted back the matter to the Revisional Authority upon quashing the order of the Revisional Authority assailed in the writ petition. While doing so this Court granted liberty to the original appellant to raise such other points as the original appellant may be advised. On remand, the Revisional Authority addressed itself only to classification of lands held by the original appellant and subsequently concluded the revision by the order assailed by the original appellant in the second writ petition. Before the writ Court the original appellant contended that the Revisional Authority erred in confining the revision only to disputes pertaining to classification of lands held by the original appellant, as it ought to have had addressed other issues raised by the original appellant. The writ Court while dealing with the writ petition, felt that the remand order passed by this Court in the earlier litigation was a limited remand order confined to disputes pertaining to classification of lands. There being no grievance as regards classification ultimately made by the Revisional Authority, the writ Court, by the judgment and order under appeal, dismissed the writ petition and hence the original appellant is before us.

(3.) ON our query, the learned counsel for the original appellant submitted that apart from the dispute pertaining to classification of land, which stands finally concluded, there was an issue which went to the root of the matter and, that is, non -preparation of a fresh draft statement in terms of sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the Act, while fresh proceeding was initiated under Section 32(B) of the Act. A look at Section 32(B) of the Act would amply demonstrate that if a fresh proceeding is to be initiated in terms thereof, the same is required to be initiated at the stage of Section 10 of the Act and subsection (1) of Section 10 of the Act requires preparation of a draft statement. The fact remains that no fresh draft statement was prepared although a de -novo proceeding was initiated under Section 32(B) of the Act. The proceeding initiated under Section 32(B) of the Act proceeded on the basis of the original draft statement. If the proceeding is required to be initiated de -novo at the stage of Section 10, as is the mandate of Section 32(B) of the Act, there cannot be any dispute that there is a mandate for preparation of a fresh draft statement. However, inasmuch as there was a draft statement in the instant case, though no fresh draft statement was prepared, the question that requires to be gone in is whether by reason of non -preparation of a fresh draft statement, the original appellant suffered any prejudice or not.