RADHA KANT MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition relates to a proceeding being LC Case No. 25/42 of 1969 -70/1973 -74, which was initiated for determination of the ceiling area of Chetmani Singh. The dispute relates to RS Plot No. 7611, 7621. and 7625 appearing to CS Plot No. 2630 measuring 16 bighas situate at Babhangama within Tribeniganj Anchal of Supaul District.

(2.) THE land in question earlier belonged to the said Chetmani Singh. He transferred the land along with other land to his first wife Tula Kumari Devi @ Tula Devi. Subsequently she transferred the land in question to her step -daughter Chitralekha Devi born from the third wife (of Chetmani Singh) named Chandrawati Devi, under registered deed of gift on 7.2.53. The name of Chitralekha Devi was mutated in the revenue records and Jamabandi was opened in her name and she paid rent all along. During the revisional survery operation, it is said, after proper enquiry her name was recorded with respect to the land. On 22.2.71 Chitralekha Devi transferred the land in question to the petitioners under various registered sale deeds. It is said that the name of the petitioners were also mutated with respect to the land in question in the revenue records and they have been paying rent. During the recent consolidation operation the names of the petitioners have also been recorded with respect to the land after proper enquiry. However, the land in question was not only included in the ceiling proceeding (LC Case No. 25 of 1969 -70) initiated against Chetmani Singh but also declared surplus treating the same to be his land without any enquiry whatsoever and notice to the petitioners. The petitioners came to this Court in CWJC No. 5259 of 1983. By order dated 23.1.92 they were asked to file petition under Section 45B before the District Collector. The status quo, however, was ordered to be maintained during the pendency of the proposed petition. On 9.3.92 the petitioners accordingly filed petition under Section 45B before the Collector, Supaul which was registered as Case no. 11/8 of 1992 -/93. By order dated 4/11.9.95 the Collector dismissed the case holding that no case had been made out for re -opening of the proceeding under Section 45B. The petitioners preferred revision being Case no. 90 of 1995 in the Board of Revenue. The Additional Member of the Board by his order dated 19.12.95 held that after the amendment of Section 45B by Bihar Ordinance No. 20/95, with effect from 8.9.95, the Collector of the District ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain, much less decide, a petition under Section 45B. As the Collector, in the present case, has passed order after 8.9.95, the order was infructuous. Accordingly, he declined to interfere in the matter. Copies of the said orders of the Collector, Supaul and Additional Member, Board of Revenue have been marked, respectively, Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition.

(3.) MR . Arun Prasad Ambastha submitted that the land in question having been transferred by the land -holders wife (who herself was a transferee from the land -holder) under registered document in the year 1953. i.e. much prior to 22.12.59, they cannot be treated as land of the land -holder and declared surplus. He submitted that the grounds assigned by the Collector for disregarding the deed of gift are not tenable. In any view, the petitioners having purchased the land bonafide and for proper consideration, the land cannot be treated surplus land of the land -holder without any enquiry and opportunity of hearing to them. Counsel also submitted that as the petition under Section 45B was pending before the Collector, Supaul prior to amendment of the Section, the same was maintainable and the Collector was otherwise competent to dispose of the same. The Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, therefore, committed error of law in rejecting the revision on the ground of non -maintainability of the appeal without going into the merit of the case.