SAMUNDRI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the final statement under Section 11(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) published in the District Gazette dated 16.12.1989 (Annexure -11) whereby and whereunder the lands belonging to the petitioner and purchased by way of registered documents have been declared as surplus in the hands of the land holder (respondent No. 5) without any notice or opportunity of hearing much less initiating any proceeding in terms of Section 5(iii) of the Act, although the lands in question have been in peaceful possession of the petitioner ever since the dates of their respective purchases and their names have also been mutated and also if need be, for quashing the entire proceedings of L.C. Case No. 24/73 in so far as the lands of the petitioner are concerned particularly when from the order sheet of the L.C. Case itself, it will be evident that report had been submitted before the authorities regarding alienation made by the land holder in favour of the different persons, but even then the authorities did not take any step as required by law for giving notice to the transferee or initiating any proceeding Under Section 5(iii) of the Act and proceeded ahead in gross violation of the provision of the Act, as also elementary principles of natural justice.

(2.) THE main contention raised by the petitioner is as to whether the raiyati lands belonging to the petitioner can be declared surplus in the hands of land -holder (respondent No. 5) without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing. The next contention raised is as to whether the respondent authority has the jurisdiction to declare the lands belonging to the petitioner as surplus in the hands of the land -holder without initiating any proceeding under Section 5(iii) of the Act. It has also been contended that land in question was transferred by the land -holder on 25.7.55 i.e. much before 22.10.59 and thus the respondents had no authority or jurisdiction to declare the land as surplus. The petitioner has further submitted that similarly situated persons belonging to the same village aggrieved by the said impugned order and action had preferred a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 3926 of 2000(R) relating to the same land ceiling proceeding and the same was allowed in terms of the order dated 15.3.2001. A specific case has been made that the proceeding being the same and the Land Ceiling case No. 24/73 which is sought to be challenged herein has already been considered by this Court and the impugned notification was quashed and direction was issued not to give effect to the said notification and unless a final order was passed in the proceeding which may be initiated by the respondents against the petitioner under Section 5(iii) of the Act, nothing could be done.

(3.) I have considered the pleadings and rival submissions. In the light of the order and judgment passed by the learned Single Judge relating to the same land ceiling proceeding one thing is clear that the acquisition proceeding was without any notice nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner and the fact remains that it was a raiyati land which was transferred by the land -holder on 25.7.55 i.e. much before 22.10.59 and a proceeding under Section 5(iii) of the Act was necessary and the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3926 of 2000 (R) vide order dated 15.3.2001 relating to the same in Land Ceiling case No. 24/73 had quashed the notification.