LALIT KISHORE CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties.

(2.) ALL these writ applications arise out of Celling (Surplus) Case No. 22 of 1973 -1974, which was inttiated against Mahanth Siya Ram Das of Bhuthari Anchal, Bachwara, in the district of Begusarai. The original landholder died during the pendency of the ceiling proceeding and his disciple (chhela) Mahanth Satya Narain Das, was substituted as landholder in the ceiling proceeding. Ceiling proceeding was initiated in respect of 176.899 acres of land situated in village Govindpur, Dadupur (Alipur), Rupaswai, Samastipur Bhith, Akbarpur and Churaman Chahk. Petitioners in all these writ applications are purchasers of lands either from different Mahanths or from the transferees in whose favour iands were transferred by one or another Mahanth in between 1956 to 1966. The lands which were so transferred much earlier to the initiation of ceiling proceeding have duly been mutated in the name of transferees. They are recorded as raiyats in the revisional survey records of rights and paying rent to the State. Common submission on behalf of the petitioners is that there was no proper enquiry under Section 55(1)(iii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act ') as the landholder did not file proper return disclosing transfer of several plots much earlier and which now belonged to others on account of transfers made long time back. These lands were also included in the ceiling proceeding, on account of non -disclosure and non -filing of return by the land holder. Such lands were also included in the ceiling proceeding which were raiyati lands of persons like the petitioners and others. However, when draft publication under Section 10 of the Act was made petitioners came to know about this fact that their lands have also been included in ceiling proceeding. They filed their objection under Section 10(3) of the Act which was duly considered by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. Orders were passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on different dates in the year 1987 - 1988 and 1988 -1989 accepting either entire transfers made in favour of the petitioners and in some cases part of transfers were considered as lawful made in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, directed to exclude transferred land from draft publication.

(3.) IN C.W.J.C. No. 2350 of 2004 there are six petitioners and they have purchased different plots of land from the khatiyani raiyats. This land, which did not belong to the landholder, was also included in the ceiling proceeding and shown as surplus as landholder. Petitioner No. 1 filed his objection under Section 10(3) of the Act and it was allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, by order, dated 5.2.1988. So far other petitioners are concerned, they did not file their objection under Section 10(3) of the Act. For the first time, they have filed writ application before this Court challenging the publication of gazette notification under Sections 11(1) as well as 15(1) of the Act.