RAMPUR CATHOLIC MISSION Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ( 'the Act ' for short) has been enacted, inter alia, to provide for fixation of ceiling of land and acquisition of surplus land by the State. Section 29 thereof provides for certain exemptions. In this writ petition the controversy relates to the extent of exemption under item (v) of clause (b) of Section 29 (1) of the Act. The facts so far as relevant for deciding the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows.

(2.) PURSUANT to a public notice issued under Section 6 of the Act, Rampur Catholic Mission Society, Rampur, West Champaran i.e. the petitioner herein, filed return of lands held by it to the extent of 230.15 acres. As per return it held 199.43 acres culturable lands of class II, 12.20 acres homestead land of class IV, 6.68 acres of Orchard and Baswari of class IV, 1.60 acres of Graveyard and 10.24 acres Kharaur land of class IV, On the basis of the said return L.C. case No. 104/1973 -74 was initiated. After enquiry held in terms of rule 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms Raj Kumar Ram Versus State Of Bihar (Fixation of the Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963, ( 'the Rules ' for short), the Collector, West Champaran sent his recommendation to the State Government for exemption of 86.82 acres of land under Section 29 (1) (b) (v) of the Act on 14.5.77. On 14.6.80, the Government returned the recommendation observing that it had not taken into account the actual income and expenditure of the petitioner - society. There is a small dispute as to whether the said letter of the Government was in response to recommendation sent by the Collector vide his letter dated 14.5.77 or his earlier letter dated 28.12.76. In view of my conclusions on the main question involved, it is not necessary to go into that dispute. On 26.4.83, the Collector made a fresh recommendation with respect to 187.78 acres. According to the petitioner, recommendation this time was made on the basis of actual expenditure and income of the society. On 15.4.85, vide letter no. 1024 the Under Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, informed the Collector that the Government had approved the earlier recommendation contained in his letter/report dated 14.5.77 to the extent of 86.82 acres of land. The Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, West Champaran, thereafter on 8.10.87 passed order determining the ceiling area of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Collector being Revenue appeal No. 133/1987 -88. By order dated 7.1.90, the Collector dismissed the appeal observing that although he had recommended exemption of 187.78 acres of land, the Government had approved exemption of only 86.82 acres. The petitioner thereafter unsuccessfully moved the Board of Revenue and finally came to this Court in the present writ petition.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents Shri Hemendra Prasad Singh submitted that Section 32B contemplates abatement of proceeding other than appeal, revision, review or reference in which final publication under Section 11 (1) of the Act had not been made, and not any enquiry under rule 9 of the Rules. Since the matter regarding exemption under Section 29 of the Act depends on the result of enquiry under rule 9 and no proceeding within the meaning of Section 10 of the Act was pending on the date of Ordinance/Act, the provisions of Section 32B were not applicable and thus the orders passed earlier by the Collector or the State Government cannot be said to have become non -existant in view of those provisions. Dealing with the rationale of the provisions of Section 32B of the Act, counsel pointed out that the abatement of pending proceedings become necessary because of large scale amendments introduced in the Act by the said Ordinance/Act, including the amendment in Section 5 which contains the charging provision of the Act. He relied on a decision in Bishun Rai & anr. vs. The State of Bihar and ors., 1993 (2) BLJ 276. As regards the other contention that the entire land held by a public or charitable institution on the date of commencement of the Act is to be excluded, Counsel submitted that they can be allowed to retain only so much of land which is actually required by them to carry out the purposes depending on their actual expenses and income. Counsel submitted that in the present case, the State Government has already taken a conscious decision to approve the earlier recommendation contained in letter dated 14.5.77 which had been duly made by the Collector. The plea that no decision has been taken on the later recommendation contained in letter dated 26.4.83 is thus not correct. It was pointed out that in terms of the order of the State Government contained in letter dated 15.4.85, the ceiling area of the petitioner was duly determined and notifications were accordingly issued in 1985 itself. Raj Kumar Ram Versus State Of Bihar