A land ceiling case under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 cannot be re-opened without giving prior notice to the landholder.

Shashank Kumar Singh, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as J.C. to G.P. 6 for the State.

2. The short point involved in the present case is as to whether Sec. 48B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) a proceeding disposed of earlier by the Collector under the Act, can be reopened without giving prior notice to the land-holder.

3. The facts of the present case inter alia is that the petitioner No. 1 Kameshwar Prasad Thakur had filed a partition suit which was numbered as Partition Suit No. 105/53 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga. The said partition suit ended in a compromise and as per the compromise the petitioner No. 1 got 289 bighas, 2 kathas and 191/4 dhurs of land. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that to meet his legal necessities he disposed of about 177 bighas of land much before 22.10.1959 and the transferees also got their names mutated and started paying rent to the ex-landlord. He further claims that neither he nor his family members have any concern with the aforesaid 117 bighas of land. The further case of the petitioner No. 1 is that he and his other family members (petitioner Nos. 2 to 5) in all possessed only 112 bighas of land. It has been further stated that petitioner No. 4 Arbind Kumar Thakur s/o petitioner No. 1 filed a partition suit in the court of Additional Sub-Judge, Darbhanga which was numbered as Partition Suit No. 136 of 1964 and which was decreed in terms of a compromise by which all the petitioners were allotted their respective shares and they are coming in possession of the same.

4. It is further stated that the petitioner No. 1 submitted his return as directed by the Collector, Madhubani under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, a verification report was called for and the Anchal Adhikari submitted his verification report stating therein that the petitioner possessed 112 bighas and 5 dhurs of land (97.08 acres). It has been claimed that the entire land as possessed by the petitioners are unirrigated as there is no source of any kind of irrigation and, as such, they are Class IV, V and VI lands. It has been further stated that the aforesaid Land Ceiling Case No. 3/6 of 1973-74 was transferred to the court of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (Respondent No. 4) for disposal and the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms by his order dated 29.5.1976/1.6.1976 dropped the proceeding holding that the family of petitioner No. 1 does not possess lands beyond ceiling limit. The order of the Deputy Collector is Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. The further case of the petitioner is that one Sri Udai Bhusan Maharaja (Respondent No. 5) made an application to the Revenue Minister, Government of Bihar alleging therein that the petitioners possessed lands much more than the ceiling area and they were big landlord of the locality. The said letter was sent to the D.C.L.R. vide letter No. 2959 dated 15.12.1980. On receiving the said letter, the D.C.L.R. made enquiries and submitted his report to the Collector, Madhubani (Respondent No. 2) vide Annexure-2 stating therein that the petitioners possessed at least 289 bighas of land, and on the basis of the said report, the Collector, Madhubani by his order dated 27.11.1981 vide Annexure-3 directed for the re-opening of the ceiling case against the petitioners in exercise of powers under Sec. 45-B of the Act. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 27.11.1981 passed by the Collector a notice was issued to the petitioner on 16.8.1982 stating therein that the land Ceiling Case No. 3/6 of 1973-74 has been re-opened and, as such, he should file his return with respect to the entire land including the frazil and beamy lands by the next date, a copy of which is annexed and marked as Annexure-4 to this writ petition.

6. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of Annexure-3, the order of the Collector, Madhubani dated 27.11.1