SUFAL MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dtd. 15/4/2004, passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikela in Land Ceiling Case No. 12 of 2003-04 in terms of which an application under Sec. 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land), Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") filed by the respondent No. 5 has been allowed. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dtd. 22/1/2007, passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 3 of 2004-05, in terms of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 15/4/2004 has been dismissed. It has also been prayed for quashing the order dtd. 23/12/2011/ 6/1/2012, passed by learned Member, Board of Revenue in Rev. Case No. 12 of 2007, by which the Revision preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 32 of the Act against the order dtd. 22/1/2007 has been dismissed.

(3.) The facts of the case in short is that by a registered sale deed dtd. 23/5/2003, the petitioner purchased 17 decimals of land falling under Plot Nos. 140, 141, 142, Khata No. 19, Than No. 52, situated in village Balrampur, P.S. Gamharia, District Seraikela-Kharsawan from Sambhu Nath Kumhar, MangalKumhar, Brindawan Kumhar and Sudhir Pal. Thereafter, by a registered deed of gift dtd. 4/8/2003, the petitioner transferred the same to his wife namely, Malti Mandaline. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 filed an application under Sec. 16 of the Act, claiming himself to be the co-sharer of the lands described above and the said case was registered as L.C. Case No. 12 of 2003-04. Upon notice, the petitioner appeared and filed his show-cause stating that the respondent No. 5 is neither the co-sharer nor the adjoining raiyat. It was further stated that the land in question stood transferred in the name of petitioner's wife prior to filing of the LC Case and as such, the said case itself is not maintainable. It was further stated that the land in question is not an agricultural land rather, there are several pucca houses constructed over the said plots and as such, the nature of the land has changed. The vendors of the petitioner have also appeared in LC Case and supported the case of the petitioner. However, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Seraikela-Kharsawan (respondent No. 4), without enquiring about the nature of the land, by his order dtd. 15/4/2004, passed in L.C. Case No. 12 of 2003-04, allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikela-Kharsawan (respondent No. 3), which was registered as LC Appeal No. 3 of 2004-05 and respondent No. 3 after hearing the parties, by his order dtd. 22/1/2007 dismissed the said appeal. Thereafter, the revision was also filed before the respondent No. 2, which was registered as Rev. Case No. 12 of 2007 but the respondent No. 2 by his order dtd. 23/12/2011/ 6/1/2012 dismissed the said revision of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Hon'ble Court.