Back
1999 Supreme(Pat) 11
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Chy. S.N. Mishra, J.
Indu Kumari @ Indu Devi & ors. – Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Bihar & ors. – Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 5402 of 1988
Decided on : 7.1.1999
For the petitioners: Mr. S.S. Asgar Hussain.
For the State: Mr. B.P. Verma.
The court established the principle that in determining the minority or majority of a person for the purpose of calculating units under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the authorities must consider all available evidence and conduct a thorough inquiry.
Headnote:
BIHAR LAND REFORMS ACT - SURPLUS LAND - CALCULATION OF UNITS - MAJORITY OF SON - INTERPRETATION OF SCHOOL CERTIFICATE - SECTION 9 AND 15(1) - SUMMARY: The court interpreted the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, particularly sections 9 and 15(1), in relation to the calculation of units for determining surplus land. It held that the school certificate produced by the petitioner, along with the verification report of the Anchal Adhikari, was sufficient evidence to establish the majority of the petitioner's son on the appointed date. The court emphasized the importance of considering all available evidence and conducting a thorough inquiry before determining the minority or majority of a person.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, the Collector, and the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, declaring 15.37 acres of land as surplus under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The petitioners claimed that the son of the objector was major on the appointed date and entitled to a separate unit, resulting in no excess land being left to the family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent authorities had ignored the materials available on record, including the school leaving certificate and the enquiry report, and had recorded a finding of minority without any evidence. It held that the objector was entitled to two units, one for herself and one for her son, and quashed the impugned orders.
Issues: 1. Whether the school leaving certificate and the enquiry report were sufficient evidence to establish the majority of the petitioner's son on the appointed date. 2. Whether the respondent authorities had properly considered all available evidence before determining the minority or majority of the petitioner's son.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of sections 9 and 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, which deal with the calculation of units and the issuance of final notification, respectively. It held that the respondent authorities had failed to properly consider the evidence presented by the petitioners and had erred in their findings. The court emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough inquiry and considering all available evidence before determining the minority or majority of a person.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application to the extent that it quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondent Collector to recalculate the land allowing two units of the objector with the option of exercising the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, if necessary, and to issue a final notification under Section 15(1) of the Act.
Mishra, J.
In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the ORDER :s dated 20.6.88, 26.8.85 and 3.9.83 passed by the respondent Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, the Collector as well as the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, whereby 15.37 acres of land were declared surplus in a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') which was registered as Case No. 70 of 1973-74. Copies of the ORDER :s are made Annexures-2, 3 and 4 respectively to this writ application. The case of the petitioners in short is that the original land holder Shyam Narain Singh died in 1972 leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives, namely, his widow, two married daughters and a son. It is stated that admittedly the name of the family members were recorded in a Chak khatian in equal share. In a proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Act, notice was issued to the petitioner Ingurbaso Kuer, widow of late Shyam Narain Singh, only and no notice was ever issued to other petitioners, namely, the daughters and son. Pursuant to the notice the widow appeared and filed objections stating therein that the son, Bishwanath Singh is a major on the appointed date i.e. 9.9.70. In support thereof a school certificate was produced stating the date of birth as 8.5.1951. It is further alleged that two married daughters alongwith one major son are also entitled to the share in the family property. The respondent Deputy Collector, however, has allowed only one unit to petitioner Ingurbaso Devi and rejected the claim of others. The respondent D.C.L.R. has rejected the objection holding that the school certificate cannot be accepted as genuine in absence of the admission register which was earlier called for from the Head Master of the school in question. The claim of the other two major daughters has been rejected on the ground of being already married, and after so holding, declared the land to the extent of 15.37 acres surplus. The ORDER :passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has been confirmed both by the appellate as well as revisional authority.
2. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondent, wherein, inter alia, it has been stated that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 were the minor daughters on the appointed date 9.9.70 and as such they are not entitled to separate unit. So far the name of the petitioner no. 4 the son of the objector is concerned, it is stated that the certificate produced by him cannot be accepted as genuine since the admission register was not produced by the concerned Head Master. However, it is admitted that the notice was issued to the wife of fate Shyam Narain Singh only and no notice was issued to other members of his family as they were minors on the appointed date.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the ORDER :s of the courts below and submits that Anchal Adhikari, Itarhi, pursuant to the direction of the respondent D.C.L.R., had made enquiry on the spot and had found the son major on the appointed date being more than 19 years of age. He further found the two married daughters were major and finally concluded that there are two major units in the family namely the objector herself and her son. He has further opined that as per the school leaving certificate the son of the objector is major one. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondent authority without any material available on the record has held the son of the objector being minor ignoring the certificate produced by the petitioners as well as the verification report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari. It is submitted that even if two units are allowed to the family, no excess land is left to the family of the objector. In this case, as stated above, the petitioners have produced the school leaving certificate showing the age of the petitioner in s
