RAMA BALLABH UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties finally.

(2.) IN spite of notice, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 6.

(3.) IN view of the order, I intend to pass, it is not necessary to narrate the facts in detail. According to the petitioner, the original land holder - Tapeshwari Pandey executed a registered deed of gift on 18.4.1963 in favour of his four Natis namely the petitioners. The said deed was executed within the grace period of 18.3.1962 to 18.4.1963 as notified under the Act. 103.56 acres of land were gifted to the petitioners, which was accepted by them and they were coming in possession and were paying rent to the State under rent receipts. Their names were recorded in the Raiyati Khatiyan. Earlier L.C. Case No. 106/1968 -69 was instituted against the said land holder -Tapeshwari Pandey, in which verification report was submitted by the Circle Officer showing that the land holder held only 105 acres 30 -1/2 decimals of land, out of which, he gifted 91.09 acres of land to the petitioners leaving only 14 acres and 21 -1/2 decimals of land. The land holder submitted that he held only 30.71 acres of land. Accordingly, by order dated 19.10.1971, the D.C.L.R. dropped the proceeding saying that the land holder did not hold land in excess of ceiling area (Annexure -5). No appeal or revision was filed against the said order and therefore it became final and binding on State. Again L.C. Case No. 6/1973 -74 was reinitiated against the said land holder. Under Section 45 -B of the Act, only the Collector of the District could reinitiate/reopen the case. The land holder filed objection saying that he had gifted 103.56 acres of land to the petitioners by the said gift deed. Petitioner also filed application for excluding the said land covered by the gift. The D.C.L.R. heard the parties and ordered on 26.12.1993, for final publication of draft statement under Section 11(1) of the Act. The mother of the petitioners Ram Swami Devi was allowed to retain only 45 acres of land for one unit. The D.C.L.R. did not consider the aforesaid order passed by the then D.C.L.R. on 19.10.1971, under which proceeding was dropped on the basis of the gift deed. The mother of the petitioners filed an appeal being L.C. Appeal No. 10/1993 -94, One Ram Shanker Pandey filed objection saying that he was allotted his share in Partition Suit No. 3 of 1936 and as such the lands in question do not belong to the land holder and therefore, it should be excluded from the list of the land holder. The said objection was allowed and it was ordered that his share may be excluded from the land shown by the land holder. By order dated 17.7.1996, the Additional Collector upheld the aforesaid finding of the D.C.L.R. that the said deed of gift was a Jarzi transaction and it was not acted upon. Pursuant to the said order dated 17.7.1996, final publication of draft settlement was made under Section 11(1) of the Act by the D.C.L.R. on 24.12.1998. Pursuant thereto, a notice was issued on 3.1.2000 by the Sub -divisional Officer for final publication of draft settlement, a copy of which was received by the petitioners on 11.1.2000 and thereafter they filed a revision before the Member, Board of Revenue being Revision No. 7/2000. The Member, Board of Revenue heard the parties but without considering the case of the petitioners rejected the revision petition on 19.4.2000. Petitioners further contention is that no enquiry has been held and no finding, has been recorded as required under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Act.