The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, a separate land holder's land should not be clubbed with another's land and declared surplus without proper consideration of their individual rights and shares.

I have heard the parties and perused the records of this case.

2. This writ application was earlier allowed vide order dated 17.03.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The aforesaid order was challenged by the purcha holders by preferring L.P.A. No. 989 of 1999 raising an issue that the land concerned was acquired by the State by properly making a gazette notification under section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) and, thereafter, they, being landless persons, were issued purchas and were put in possession, however, the purcha holders were not even made party in the writ application and, as such, no notice was ever issued and served upon them and the order impugned was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to them. However, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.09.1999 dismissed the appeal holding that it is well settled that such a person cannot acquire any right merely because purcha has been issued in his favour. If the acquisition itself has been held to be invalid they have no option but to walk out. The matter travelled up to the Apex Court. The Apex Court after hearing the purcha holders in Civil Appeal No. 5478 of 2000, being in disagreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court, set aside the judgment rendered by Single Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 323 of 1999 as well as the impugned judgment rendered in the concerned Letters Patent Appeal and directed that the matter would go back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition afresh. The purcha holders were granted opportunity to make an application in the writ application to implead themselves as respondents and contest the writ application.

3. It further appears that another L.P.A. No. 356 of 2000 was also filed by the State of Bihar and others against the same very order dated 17.03.1999 which was earlier passed in the writ petition and was dismissed vide order dated 10.07.2000, however, that order was not challenged before the Apex Court. However, it is not of much relevance in view of the fact that the order dated 17.03.1999 passed in the present writ petition has already been set aside by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5478 of 2000.

4. The purcha holders, thereafter, filed I.A. No. 6668 of 2000 for their impleadment in the writ petition. They have also made statement on the merit of the case with a prayer to dismiss the writ petition.

5. The matter was heard on 01.02.2001 and the purcha holders were allowed to be impleaded as respondent nos. 8 to 17 and the writ petition was admitted.

6. In the aforesaid background, the matter was heard at length.

7. It appears from the averment made in the writ petition that Land Ceiling Case No. 52 of 1974-75 was initiated against the respondent no. 6, Prabal Pratap Singh and others, which was later on registered as Land Ceiling Case No. 144 of 1975-76. In the said proceeding the land holders were shown in possession of 202.26 acres of Class-IV land. Five units were allowed to the land holders and they were allowed to retain 159.10 acres of Class-IV land. The remaining 43.26 acres of Class-IV lands were declared surplus and a notification under section 15(1) of the Act was published in Sasaram District Gazette on 10.01.1985. The petitioner claims that her 20.78 acres of lands, i.e., 5.03 acres in khata no. 31 and 15.75 acres in khata no. 32 situated in village Thiloi, Anchal and P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Rohtas, now Kaimur, were clubbed and while lands of khata no. 32 (area 15.75 acres) were granted in the ceiling units of the land holders, lands of khata no. 31 (area 5.03 acres) were declared surplus and acquired by the State under the Act.

8. It has been stated by the petitioner that she inherited the lands of khata nos. 31 and 32 after the death of her father, namely, late Raghunath Prasad Singh as he died on 10.12.1956 leaving behind his widow, nam