BISHWANATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the Petitioners have challenged the orders as contained in Annexures-1 to 3, as well as, notification (Annexure-4) issued under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) passed in pursuance of Land Ceiling Case No. 19/73-74/. It appears that a land ceiling proceeding was initiated against the original landholder-Badloo Pandey and on his death, the same was continued in the name of Vi0dya Pandey. Initially, six units were allowed in favour of landholder and their family. After amendment of the Act and insertion of Section 32A of the Act, the proceeding was started afresh from the stage of Section 10 of the Act. The landholder-Vidya Pandey filed objection under Section 10(3) of the Act, by Which while he brought to the notice of the authorities, the private partition already taken place in the joint family, prayed to allow more units in favour of family of the landholder(s). However, such objection was rejected on 15.2.83 whereinafter notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was published on 31.3.83. The appeal preferred by Petitioners, was initially dismissed on 19.8.85 but in pursuance of an order passed in a revision case, the matter was remitted to the Collector for fresh disposal of appeal. The appellate authority again rejected the appeal by Impugned order dated 29.3.97 whereinafter the revision case preferred by Petitioners was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 27.8.97.

(2.) In this case, the grievance of the Petitioners is with respect to grant of units in favour of landholders. According to them, they are entitled for about 37 units, there being separate landholders, who were major as on 9.9.70. In support of their contention, they have relied on genealogical table of original landholder Badloo Pandey as shown at Annexure-7 to the writ petition and the report as submitted vide letter No. 445 dated 9.11.77 by Circle Officer as contained in Annexure-8.

(3.) Generally, the question of allotment of separate unit in favour of landholder and to the member of its family are being determined by the authorities on the touch-stone of majority of a member as on the cut-off date (9.9.70), who allow separate units to a major member of family and additional units are allowed on the basis of total number of minor members of such family. In most of the cases in this State, it is being seen that in a proceeding against landholder not only units are allowed to a family landholder, with additional units for the minors, even the major sons and daughters are also allowed separate units, if found major as on 9.9.70. The question of grant of separate units fell for consideration before this Court and the Supreme Court a number of times. Initially certain decision was given by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Imamul Hasan Choudhary V/s. State of Bihar and Ors., 1982 PLJR 321), but subsequently, the matter fell for consideration before Full Bench of this Court in K.M. Zuberi, 1986 PLJR 67). In the said case, the learned Judges differed vertically on the question relating to grant of separate units in favour of major sons of a family governed by Mitakshara school of Hindu Law. While by majority judgment, It was held that the major son of a family governed by Mitakshara school, Is entitled to independent unit the minority view was otherwise for some other teasons. In the said case, Justice L.M. Sharma (as he then was) held that a major son of a Hindu governed by Mitakshara school of law does not get independent unit as son of his father whose unit area is being determined on the ground that he gets unit by reasons of his being independent. Subsequently, K.M. Zuberi, 1996 AIR(SC) 1496 case fell for consideration before the Supreme Court . The Supreme Court in the said case affirmed the minority view of Justice Sharma as correct, as distinct from the view of majority of the Judges as was given by Full Bench of this Court. In the 'said case of K.M. Zuberi, the Supreme Court held as follows;