The court upheld prior determinations under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, affirming the necessity for credible evidence in claims for land units while emphasizing the finality of earlier rulings.

JUDGMENT :

Rajiv Roy, J.

Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioners as also Mrs. Nutan Sahay and Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned Assistant Counsels for the State.

A. PRAYER:

2. The present writ application has been filed for the following relief(s):

“(i) for the issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated 27.02.2017 passed by Shri K.K. Pathak, I.A.S, Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Revision (Land Ceiling Surplus) Case No. 3/2009 whereby, the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Collector, West Champaran, Bettiah in Appeal No. R.A. No. 58/1988-1989 and the order dated 07.06.1988 passed by the Additional Collector (Land Ceiling) West Champaran, Bettiah in Case No. 13/1975 have been re-affirmed (as contained in Annexure 8);

(ii) for the issuance of an appropriate writ restraining the respondents to distribute the surplus land arising out of Ceiling Case No. 13/1974-1975;

(iii) for any other relief/reliefs the petitioners are entitled for under the law as well as on facts.”

B. FACTS:

3. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present writ petition is/are as follows:

a) PETITIONERS’s CASE:

4. A Land Ceiling Case no. 13/1974-75 was initiated against the landholder, Rajeshwar Rao over 72.96 acres of land and after allowing 44.62 acres equivalent to two units, the rest 28.34 acres of lands were declared surplus. Accordingly, the draft statement under section 10(2) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (henceforth for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 12.11.1976.

5. The landholder thereafter preferred objection as follows:

(i) he surrendered 2.86 acres of land;

(ii) late Bacha Rao’s daughter has been denied unit;

(ii) only two units have been allowed for the widow and the landholder, Rajeshwar Rao whereas the grandmother was alive on09.09.1970.

6. It came to be disposed of by the Additional Collector, West Champaran on 20.12.1976 holding that:

(i) 2.86 surrendered land be excluded from the land of the landholder;

(ii) late Bacha Rao’s units has been allotted to her widow (mother of the landholder) and no separate unit can be allotted to his sister;

(iii) in the genealogical table, grandmother has been shown dead. The same is recorded in verification report and as such, she is entitled to a separate unit.

(Annexure R/2 to counter affidavit)

7. This followed notification under Section 11(1) of ‘the Act’ on 21.01.1977. Thereafter, Appeal No. 308 of 1976- 77 was preferred before the Collector, West Champaran which came to be rejected on 15.02.1977.

8. The landholder preferred Ceiling Revision Case no. 348/1977 before the Board of Revenue, Bihar. It was disposed of on 27.07.1977 by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and the matter was remanded back to the Collector, West Champaran for fresh adjudication.

9. The Board of Revenue held that the petitioner’s main claim was grant of additional unit to the grandmother, Shujhari Kunwar who was alive on 09.09.1970. It came to the conclusion that the grandmother was entitled to an additional unit.

10. The Board of Revenue’s order dated 27.07.1977 (Annexure-3 to the petition) is incorporated hereinbelow:

RESOLUTION

This revision application filed u/s 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on behalf of Rajeshwar Rao, son of late Bacha Rao and Mt. Sheojhari Kuer, widow of late Nageshwar Rso, both residents of village Mathis, P.S. Lauriya, district West Champaran is directed against order dated 15-2-77 of the learned Collector, in Revenue Appeal NO. 308/76-77, whereby the learned Collector dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 20-12-76 or the learned in L. C. Case NO. 13/75-76.

2. The impugned orders of the learned lower courts have been assailed by the learned lawyer on behalf of the petitioners mainly on the ground that the lower courts erred in not giving a ceiling unit