Back
High Court of Patna
G.C. Bharuka, J.
Tarkeshwar Narayan Singh – Petitioner
Vs.
The Collector, Nalanda and anr. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 550 of 1983
Decided on : 1.11.1990
Ceiling Proceedings - Bihar Land Reforms - The court quashed the order passed by the Collector under Section 458 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, stating that the grounds for reopening the proceedings were not valid and did not provide positive reasoning.
Fact of the Case:
The writ application was filed against the order passed by the Collector purporting to exercise powers under Section 458 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The impugned order was based on two reasons related to findings on a specific date and transfer of land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds for reopening the proceedings were not valid and did not provide positive reasoning, leading to the quashing of the order in the writ application.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the grounds for reopening the concluded proceedings under Section 458 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector should not reopen proceedings under Section 458 without positive reasoning, as doing so on frivolous grounds could lead to harassment of landholders.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application and allowed the writ application with no order as to cost.
G.C. Bharuka, J.
The present writ application is directed against the order dated 2.11.1982 (Annexure-7) passed by the Collector, Nalanda purporting to exercise his powers. Under Section 458 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition. of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As appears from the impugned order, the ceiling proceedings against the petitioner had been concluded by the DCLR, Bihar Sharif on 10.7.1975.
2. The impugned order has been passed by the Collector for two reasons:
(I) There is no clear finding, with regard to the majority or minority on 9.9.1970, and
(II) There is no clear finding with regard to the transfer of 17.55 acres of land to Ramchandra Prasad Singh.
3. I am afraid such grounds cannot form the basis for reopening proceedings under Section 45B of the Act. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that for the purpose of section 45B the Collector is not to reopen floodgates for fishing enquiry. Therefore, there should be positive reasoning for reopening of the concluded proceedings otherwise if such powers are allowed to be exercised frequently on any frivolous ground then it may lead to untold harassment of the land holders.
4. For these reasons, I quash the order as contained in Annexure 7 to the writ application. This writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to cost.
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
