Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and R.M.Prasad JJ.
Bishun Rai
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4176 of 1992 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 21, 1993
LAND REFORMS - Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - Amendment Act 55 of 1982 - Sections 32-A and 32-B - Effect on pending proceedings - Whether materials collected before publication of draft statement under Sec.10 (1) of the Act are completely wiped off.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the orders passed by the authorities under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (the Act), contending that after abatement of the proceeding, the matter has to start on a clean slate, wiping off the effect of earlier orders, returns, verification reports, and other materials collected.
Finding of the Court:
1. Sections 32-A and 32-B of the Act, introduced by Amendment Act 55 of 1982, mandate that proceedings, other than appeals, revisions, reviews, or references, pending on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act and in which final publication under Sec.11 (1) of the Act had not been made, shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10 of the Act. 2. The abatement of proceedings under Sec.32-A does not completely wipe off the materials collected before the publication of the draft statement under Sec.10 (1) of the Act. 3. The first return submitted by the landholder and earlier reports submitted by the concerned authorities are not completely wiped off but may, in a given case, only be supplemented. 4. The Collector is entitled to proceed on the basis of all the materials which were before him prior to the coming into force of Amendment Act 55 of 1982, but he is required to apply his mind afresh on those materials as a fresh determination is required to be made.
Issues: 1. Whether the materials collected before publication of the draft statement under Sec.10 (1) of the Act are completely wiped off on coming into force of Amendment Act 55 of 1982? 2. Whether the Collector can proceed on the basis of the materials collected prior to the Amendment Act without applying his mind afresh?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The phraseology used in Sections 32-A and 32-B of the Act indicates that only appeals, revisions, reviews, or references pending before any authority on the date of coming into force of the Amendment Act shall stand abated. 2. Section 32-B mandates that proceedings other than those referred to in Section 32-A, pending on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act and in which final publication under Sec.11 (1) of the Act had not been made, shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with the provisions of Sec.10 of the Act. 3. The purpose of Sections 32-A and 32-B is to ensure that all proceedings are started afresh from the stage of Sec.10 of the Act, but it does not mean that the materials collected earlier are completely wiped off. 4. The Collector is required to apply his mind afresh on the materials available on record as a fresh determination is required to be made under Sections 32-A and 32-B.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed as the petitioners failed to show any substantial change in the determination of the ceiling area of the landholder due to the Amendment Act or any prejudice caused to them by the draft publication made under Sec.10 (1) of the Act.
S. B. Sinha, J.
1. - In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 14-2-1989 passed in Land Ceiling case No 8 of 1983-84/1978-79 by respondent No.4 and the?order dated 1-4-1991 passed by respondent No, 3 in Revenue Appeal No.4 of 1989-90 as also the resolution of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 31-12-1991 in revision case No.82 of 1991 as contained in annexures 1 2 and 4 respectively. The petitioners have further prayed for the stayof further proceeding in Land Ceiling case No.8 of 1983-84 and realisation of the costs awarded against them by the revisional authority.
2. Admittedly, a proceeding under the provision of Bihar Land reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act 1961 (hereinafter called and referred to as the Act) being Ceiling case no.26 of 1978-79 was initiated against the petitioners. A draft statement was prepared on 1-9-1990. The petitioner No, 1 did not file anv objection within the prescribed period but he filed it lateron which was rejected. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the said order which was also rejected. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue being Revision Case No.1 of 1981.
3. The petitioners have contended that during the pendency of the aforementioned revision application, Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Amendment Ordinance 1981 (Bihar Ordinance 66 of 1981), which was later on repealed and replaced by Bihar Act 55 of 1982. came into force and in terms of Sections 32-A and 32-B as inserted thereby, all proceedings abated and such proceedings were required to be started from the stage of Sec.10 of the aforementioned Act. The petitioners have contended that in that view of the matter, the Additional Member, Board of Revenue remanded the matter back to the Collector under the said Act.
4. It has been submitted that instead of proceeding afresh the respondent No 4 took up the case on the basis of the earlier draft statement. They, admittedly, did not file any objection under Sec.10 (3)" of the Act and thus the Collector by an order dated 24-10-1983 directed preparation and publication of the final statement under Sec.11 (1)of the Act. The petitioner No.1 preferred an appeal against the said order which was dismissed on 14-8-1985. The petitioners thereafter filed a revision application being revision case No 339 of 1985 and the matter was again remanded back.
5. The petitioners have contended that the original number of the case being Ceiling Case No.26 of 1978-79 was renumbered as case No.8 of 1983-84 and the petitioners were directed to submit their objection against old draft statement agains. They submitted their objection which was rejected by reason of the impugned order dated 14-2-1989. As noticed hereinbefore, the appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioners against the said order were also dismissed.
6. The Member, Board of Revenue while dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioners also awarded a cost of Rs.500/- against him.
7. In this case, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 3 to 5. In the said counter-affidavit, it has been stated that from the order-sheet dated 6-8-1983 it would appear that the Additional Collector directed publication of draft statement under Sec.10 (2) of the Act and by an order dated 8-8-1983 it was held that the petitioners have 65.22 acres of class IV lands and were allowed to hold one unit of 30 acres of land and a draft publication was directed to be published accordingly. The said draft publication was published in the Zila Gazette dated 16-9-1983. The petitioners thereafter were called upon to file objection within 30 days. The petitioner No.2 was a Child aged about four years on 9-9-1970. The draft publication was directed to be made final by an order dated 24-10-83 and a final publication was made under Sec.11 (1) of the Act in Zila gazet
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
