Back
High Court of Patna
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
Smt. Indra Kala Devi & ors - Petitioners
Versus
State of Bihar and others - Respondent
C.W.J.C. No. 5054 of 1987
Decided On : 14.10.1998
LAND CEILING ACT - SECTION 5(I) (II) AND 5(I) (III) - LAND TRANSFER - GIFT AND SALE - EXCLUSION FROM SURPLUS LAND - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged orders declaring certain lands of the original land holder as surplus. They claimed that 24.86 acres of land were gifted to the second petitioner in 1940, and 15.74 acres were sold to the 3rd, 4th, and 5th petitioners in 1971. The petitioners argued that these lands should be excluded from the surplus land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 24.86 acres of land gifted to the second petitioner was held to be her land by a court decree in 1970, and that the records of right were prepared accordingly. The court also found that the petitioners were not heard at the original stage of the land ceiling proceeding.
Issues: Whether the gifted and sold lands should be excluded from the surplus land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the gifted land should be excluded from the surplus land as it was not annulled after notice to the second petitioner under Section 5(i) (iii) of the Act. The court also held that the sold lands should be treated as selected by the land holder for the purpose of retention in terms with section 9(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court remitted the case to the Additional Collector (Ceiling) for reconsideration, directing the petitioners to appear before the authority and produce evidence relating to the transfer of lands and the court decree. The authority was directed to exclude the gifted land from the surplus land and treat the sold lands as selected for retention.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
The writ petition was (first petitioner since deceased now substituted by heirs): Smt. Indra Kala Devi second petitioner Sharad Chandra Mishra third petitioner, Ashok Kumar Mishra – fourth petitioner and Arun Kumar Mishra – fifth petitioner. They challenged all the orders dated 31st of March, 1984. 17th of November, 1986 and 10th of September, 1987, whereby and whereunder the revisional authority declared certain lands of land holder Late Janardhan Mishra as suplus and such order was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities.
2. As the case can be disposed of on short point, as agreed by the parties, it is not necessary to discuss all facts and claims of the parties, except the relevant one.
3. The land ceiling proceeding, being L.C. Case No. 174/74 was started against the original land holder, Late Janardhan Mishra uncle of deceased petitioner Balram Mishra (elder brother of Late Manikant Mishra. Initially six units were allowed and no land was found to be surplus. After amendment of Act and insertion of Section 32(B) therein, the proceeding was started afresh. The only heir Balram Mishra was substituted, who filed objection under Section 10(3) of the Act. Balram Mishra prayed for exclusion of certain lands which were gifted to second petitioner Smt. Indrakala Devi in the year 1940 and the lard which were transferred in favour of other petitioners in the year 1971. However, the objections to the aforesaid extent was not taken into consideration and the impugned original order was passed on 31st March, 1984. Thereafter, the appeal and then the revision application which were preferred by deceased Balram Mishra were also rejected vide impugned appellate and revisional orders dated 17th November, 1986 and 10th September 1987 respectively.
4. The petitioners have specifically pleaded that 24.86 acres of lands were gifted to second petitioner Smt. Indrakala Devi, the daughter of the original land holder, during her marriage in the year 1940. In this respect a title suit No. 25/70 was filed, wherein judgment and decree was passed by Learned Munsif, Araria on 4th April 1970, much prior the initation of Ceiling proceeding. Learned Munsif held that the 24.86 Acres land in question is the land of second petitioner Smt. Indrakala Devi. The records of right was also prepared accordingly and her name was mutated in respect of land in question as she was found to be in possession of the same.
It has further been stated that certain lands were sold by deceased petitioner Balram Mishra in favour of 3rd, 4th and 5th petitioners on 24th of August, 1971 by three separate sale deeds, whereby 15.74 acres of lands were transferred in their favour. It stated that such land has been declared surplus without any inquiry and without any notice under section 5(i) (ii) of the Ceiling Act.
5. With respect to land, stated to be gifted to the second petitioner (24.86 acres) it is stated that such transfer has not been annulled after notice to the second petitioner under Section 5(i) (iii) of the Act.
No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The aforesaid facts as stated by the petitioners have not been controverted.
6. In view of aforesaid facts, the mater requires re-consideration, as admittedly the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, petitioners were not heard at the original stage. Accordingly the case is remitted to the Additional Collector (Ceiling) Supaul who is stated to be the competent authority.
7. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Supaul personally or through their lawyer on or before 15th December, 1998 and will produce a copy of this order along with an application giving therein the relevant dates relation to transfer of lands with supporting documents. The authority concerned will fix a date of hearing before whom the petitioners will produce the relevant evidence relating to transfer of their land in their favour, judgment and decree aforesaid and
AI
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
