THAMNI DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner -cum -Competent Authority where he has declared 12,449.64 square meters of land of the petitioners as surplus land in a proceeding under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short 'the said Act'). The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.99 passed by respondent No. 2, the Commissioner. South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi whereby he has affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' case is that the land of Khata No. 12 of village Lowadih, Namkum. Ranchi measuring total area of 12.77 acreshave been recorded in R.S. records of right as agricultural land in the name of Karma Teli and Gopi Teli. both sons of Puran Teli. Said Karma Teli filed return under Section 6(1) of the said Act giving details of the lands held and possessed by him and his family members. Karma Teli died during the pendency of the ceiling proceeding in 1984 -85 leaving behind him his five sons and three grand sons. All the five sons and three grand sons had attained majority before the appointed date and. as such, they were entitled to one separate unit. Petitioners' further case is that respondent No. 4, the Kanungo, submitted his verification report stating that the petitioners have total 2.168 karis equivalent to 8602 sq. meters residential lands and 15436 sq. meters agricultural lands and thus the petitioners have total 24038 sq. meters land. It is contended that as per the report of the Kanungo, the respondent No. 3 ought to have dropped the proceeding against the petitioners holding that they do not have any excess land. However, another verification report was submitted by respondent No. 4 wherein he has shown 848.54 sq. meters as constructed area and recommended for exclusion of 10000 sq. meters of land. On the basis of the said report a draft statement was published by respondent No. 3 inviting objections under Section 8(i) and (ii) of the said Act. showing 14284.15 sq. meters of land as excess vacant lands. The petitioners filed their objection contending, inter alia, that there are 9 major members in the joint family of the petitioners and they attained majority before the appointed date and, as such, they are entitled to one unit each. The respondent No. 3, after hearing the objection, declared 12449.64 sq. meters of land to be excess land in the hands of the petitioners. The said order was affirmed in appeal before respondent No. 2 in U.L.C. Case No. 77/98.

(3.) MR . Debi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has made two -fold submissions: firstly that the petitioners are entitled to eight units and not five units for the reason that there were eight adult members in the family of Karma Teli on the appointed dated i.e., in 1976 when the Act came into force; and secondly that the lands in question have been recorded as agricultural lands in the revenue records of rights and, therefore, the lands in question cannot and shall not be treated as vacant lands within the meaning of the Act. Learned counsel lastly submitted that even assuming that the petitioners are entitled to five units only, if the agricultural lands are excluded then there shall be no excess lands left in the hands of the petitioners. Learned counsel, in this context, put heavy reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Atia Mohammadi Begum v. State of U.P., AIR 1993 SC 2265.