The Collector cannot proceed directly under Section 38 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act for failure to submit a return under Section 6. The Collector must first follow the procedure prescribed under Section 8, including issuing a personal notice to the landholder and providing an opportunity to submit a return or a revised return.

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. In all these three cases are involved important questions of law as to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962) hereinafter called the Act. The facts of the three cases are also identical. They have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. I shall state the necessary facts from the file of C. W. J. C. 2019 of 1970. The petitioners case is that a public notice as contemplated under Sec. 6 of the Act seems to have been published calling upon land-holders in the district of Monghyr to submit returns. But the petitioner was not aware of any such publication of the notice under Sec. 6. On the 22nd of November 1970 he received a notice signed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Begusarai, acting as Collector under the Act, calling upon him to show cause why the excess land in his possession should not be acquired under Sec.38 of the Act. A copy of this notice is annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner filed a petition on 27-11-1970 before respondent No. 2 challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Act and the proposed action to be taken under Section 38 of the Act. A copy of this petition is annexure 2. Respondent No 2 rejected this petition by his order dt. 30-11-1970 (annexure 3). The petitioner challenges the legality and validity of the notice (annexure 1) and the order (annexure 3) on several grounds to be discussed hereinafter.

3. After admission of this application, the petitioner filed a petition before respondent No. 2 on 7-1-1971 for extension of time for filing return under Section 6 of the Act. A copy of this petition is annexure 5 and the order refusing to extend time made by respondent No. 2 is dated 7-1-1971 (annexure 4). Later on, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit on 22-3-1971 attaching with it an order of the Collector as also of respondent No. 2 acting as the Collector under the Act made on 28-10-1970 (annexure 7) on the basis of the Government letter dated the 1st/3rd August, 1970 (annexure 8), and the stand on the basis of these two documents is that impugned action and the order was taken and made by respondent No. 2 not in exercise of his own judicial discretion but under coercion of the Government direction contained in annexure 8.

4. Respondent No, 1 is the State of Bihar. A show cause petition was filed on behalf of the respondents on 24-3-1971 and they refute the attack made in the writ application on the steps taken by respondent No. 2 under the Act.

5. The facts of the other two cases are identical in all respects except that the date of annexure 1 in the other two cases is probably not 22-11-70 but is 11-11-1970. It is not necessary to repeat those facts.

6. In none of the 3 cases issuance and publication of the notice under Sec. 6 of the Act seem to be in any serious dispute. What is alleged, however, is that the petitioners had no knowledge of this notice. I may dispose of this point at the outset. If the notice was published under Sec. 6 in the manner provided therein then in the eye of law the petitioner will be deemed to have knowledge of this notice, for such general notice is contemplated under Sec. 6 of the Act.

7. I may also dispose of one more point before I come to deal with the main points in the cases and that is this. The filing of the petition by the petitioners on 7-1-1971 for extension of time under Sec. 6 of the Act was of no avail to them. In these writ applications it cannot be held that the order dated 7-1-1971 refusing to extend time was illegal or fit to be quashed. The application for extension of time was filed by the petitioners after the expiry of the period mentioned in the notice under Sec. 6. Firstly, I am of the opinion that such an extension can be asked for before the expiry of the time. Secondly, even assuming that an application can be filed after the expiry of