UMA SHANKAR PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a land ceiling proceeding, certain lands were declared surplus, the appeal and revision applications preferred by the landholder were rejected. The aforesaid orders, as contained in Annexures -3, 2 & 1 respectively, have been challenged by the petitioners.

(2.) A land Ceiling Case no.17 of 1973 -74 was initiated against the original landholder late Jagarnath Prasad Singh wherein final order was passed on 28th April, 1981 and notification U/s 11(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued on 26th February, 1983 whereby and where under 18.07 acres of lands were declared surplus. Two units were allowed in favour of the landholders and their family. Being not satisfied, the landholders preferred appeal. In the meantime, in view of insertion of section 32A of the Act, the original proceeding abated. A fresh proceeding was started and re -numbered as L.C.Case no.8 of 1990 -91. This time, after submission of a fresh verification report and draft publication, the petitioners filed objection under section 10(3) of the Act. They claimed for more units, exclusion of certain lands from the proceeding and challenged the classification. Prayer was rejected vide original order dated 3rd/7th July, 1995 and only two units, one in favour of first petitioner Uma Shankar Prasad and the other in favour of second petitioner Smt. Kishori Devi(Widow of late Jagarnath Prasad Singh) were allowed. No separate unit was allowed in favour of third petitioner -Sabita Mishra, nor any land was excluded towards her share. The appeal and then the revision applications, thereafter, preferred by the petitioners were also rejected vide orders dated 5th November, 1996 and 21st February, 1998 respectively.

(3.) THE counsel for the State while opposed the prayer, submitted that the petitioners failed to persue their case before the original authority and did not press the objection. He placed reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.M.Zuberi and others [1996 (2) P.L.J.R. 55(S.C.)] in support of contention that the daughter being not a member of the family, was not entitled for separate unit.