MOHAN PRASAD MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners seek quashing the orders dated 16-9-1975 and 6-10-1975 (Annexures 1 and 8) rendered by the Additional Sub-divisional Officer, Bermo, the order dated 28-3-1977(Annexure-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, the order dated 27-9-1977 (Annex- ure-5) passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, and the order dated 16-3-1978 (Annexure-6) passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar Patna, by which orders the, acquisition of land and the publication of the notification made 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) dated 13-11-1975 has been confirmed.

(2.) On 18-11-1982 the petitioners obtained an order to the effect that pending final beating of this writ petition, distribution of the lands as mentioned in Scheduled I at page 24 of the writ petition would remain stayed. On 6-2-1985 a contempt petition was filed bearing M J. C. No, 85 of 1985 stating that inspite of the stay order the respondents were dealing with the lands in question. A show cause was filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the respondents, stated that the lands had already been distributed in the year 1978 and on 14-8-1982 except the Ahar (pond) situated in Plot No. 1860, which is not arable and, therefore, the authorities treated the pond as a Shairat and fixed a reserved Jama for the purpose of auction. The State Government was not aware that 2.40 acres of land comprising the pond were not arable when the notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was rendered From the show cause it appears that on various dates the pond was on auction as Shairat interest of the Government in which the petitioners also participated and before its final settlement petitioner No. 1 moved this Court by filling the aforesaid petition for contempt to the effect that inspite of the order of stay the respondents were acting and dealing with the property. This Court while accepting the apology ordered not to take in future any action which will bs inconsistent with the stay order.

(3.) The petitioners case in this writ petition is that even though they have been allowed one unit of 30 acres of land, but the said land does not belong to them and the land which actually belongs to them has been notified under Section 15 (1) of the Act.