BANSRAJI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE connected writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 9236/98 was disposed of by this Court on 12.3.1999 with certain observation. The revisional order therein remanding the matter was not interfered with but certain clarifications were made relating to determination of majority of one or other landholder. At para -9 to the said application, this Court held and observed as follows: "Accordingly, while l do not choose to interfere with the impugned revisional order dated 5th May 97, so far as the question of remand is concerned, make it clear that on such remand, the majority of one or other landholder is to be determined on the basis of claim as being made by one or other landholder. If one or other Landholder claims to be a raiyat -Landholder of his own right, as on 9.9.1970, then the majority of such landholder is to be determined on the basis of such cut off date of 9.9.1970. On the other hand, if one or other person claims to be raiyat - landholder by inheritance, after death of any original raiyat -landholder died after 9.9.1970 then, in such case, the majority of such claimant is to be determined on the basis of date of death of original landholder, whose land devolved on the heir on his death. Similarly, if one or other person is found to be raiyat on such inheritance after death of original landholder, but is not found to be major on the cut off date, then the land to the extent of his share is to be clubbed together with the land of his parents, treating the person as minor member of the family of his parents.

(2.) WHILE the present petition for review has been preferred by writ petitioners, at the time of argument, their counsel submitted that more clarification of aforesaid judgment, particularly para -9 aforesaid in required. It was submitted that one of the claims raised by the petitioners was with respect to admission of certain units by the State of Bihar, in respect of landholders, who were found to be above 18 years of age on the cut off date i.e. 9.9.1970 and report to that effect was submitted in the year 1976. There was no dispute of age in respect of one or other landholder. Though the matter was remitted for subjecting landholders for determination of majority by Medical Board, there was no occasion for determination of such majority by a Medical Board of one or other landholder in respect of whom there was no dispute, having shown major in one or other report.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that the aforesaid question raised has not been determined while judgment in question was passed, nor any classification was made in this respect while specific observation was made relating to determination of majority at para -9 of the judgment in question.