SURENDRA CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed on behalf of 66 petitioners, challenging the decision of the authorities whereby, 120.68 Acres of land were declared surplus in Ceiling Case No.4 of 1973 -74, which was started against respondent no.7 Chandra Mauli Deo.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the abovementioned ceiling case was started against respondent no.7 with respect to 355.82 Acres of land. Out of the said land, as would appear from the averments on record, the land holder disowned 120.68 Acres of land. Taking into consideration the abovementioned facts and other relevant materials, the authorities declared 252 Acres of land surplus and consequent thereto, the final publication and publication under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, in short "the Ceiling Act", were done. The grievance of these 66 petitioners and intervenors, namely, Ram Sagar Singh and others, is that although in the record of rights names of the father and ancestors of some of the petitioners were also mentioned and they were paying rent to the State of Bihar regularly, these lands were declared surplus without any notice. Reference in this regard was made to the ordersheet in Cess Valuation Case No.91 of 1992 and copy of Register -II to show that even in the year, 1920 -21 some of the lands of Mauza -Masudanpur, P.S. -Balia, District Begusarai were recorded in the name of the fathers of the petitioners as raiyats and the amount of rent etc. also was mentioned. The intervenors Ram Sagar Singh and ors. also have annexed copy of the order of the Anchal Adhikari in Mutation Case No. 641 of 1976 -77 to state that their names were mutated over some of the lands and a Title Suit is also pending with respect to 25 Bighas of land. Reference was also made to Annexure -B, which is a copy of the verification report in the ceiling case, to show that on spot verification and enquiry from the villagers, it was found that these lands were in possession of the villagers of Masudanpur even prior to the vesting of Jamindari. He also found possession of the villagers of Masudanpur over some of the lands.

(3.) MR . Verma appearing for the settlees contended that the documents on which the petitioners or the interveners had relied, are not with respect to the total area of the land. He further contended that the claim of the intervenors on the basis of the mutation order of 1976 -77 will have no bearing in such matters. Because even those lands were recorded in their names since purchases of these lands were after 9.9.1970, therefore, such sale deeds had to be ignored as the transactions are void. He further contended that even from the verification report it appears that total 120.68 Acres of lands were found recorded in the name of Savitri Devi the wife of the land holder. Therefore, in law it be deemed that this land belonged to family of which respondent no.7 was the Karta. It was not necessary for the authorities to get any further verification about the claim of the petitioners. Therefore, injsuch circumstances the claim of the petitioners should not be entertained at this stage.