ANITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 25.8.1992 (Annexure 1) passed by the Board of Revenue in Case No. 57 of 1989, (adopting the order of the same date passed in the connected case being Case No. 51 of 1989 -Annexure 1/A); and also the order dated 26.12.1988 (Annexure 2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau in Case No. XV/31/86 -87 (adopting the order passed in Case No. XV/27/87 -88 -Annexure 2/A); and also the order dated 7.4.1986 (Annexure 3) passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau in L.C. Case No. 51/73 -74.

(2.) A proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was started against one Shyam Bihari Singh by the Additional Collector, Daltonganj who by his order dated 18.10.1976 held that the land holder was entitled to retain 45 acres of Class IV land and the rest of the area was declared as surplus. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide order dated 19.7.1977 in Appeal No. XV/41/76 -77. During the pendency of the appeal, Shyam Bihari Singh died on 4.2.1977 leaving behind his widow Smt. Buchani Devi and two daughters, namely, Smt. Girija Devi and Smt. Parvati Devi. After the disposal of the appeal, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue being Revision Case No. 679 of 1977 which was rejected by order dated 15.7.1978. Against the said order of the revisional authority, a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 4795 of 1978 was filed contending that due to death of Shyam Bihari Singh during the pendency of the appeal, the entire proceedings abated. The High Court by order dated 17.4.1979 quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector, Palamau to take further steps in the matter.

(3.) BY the impugned order dated 7.4.1986, the Additional Collector rejected such objections holding that the purchasers are non -else, but the daughter, grand daughter and grand sons of the land holder; that the consideration in each sale deed was only Rs. 2,000/ - for 40 -50 acres of land; that such sale was without permission of the Deputy Commissions and that the lands were in cultivating possession of the land -holder. Therefore, he held that the said sale deeds were sham transactions created for the purpose of defeating the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, a draft statement under Section 11(1) was served on the land holders on 15.10.1986. In appeal, this order was confirmed. Then the petitioner moved the Board of Revenue which also confirmed the said orders.