JUDGMENT
Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.
1. The petitioners have challenged the notification published in Ranchi Gazette on 1.4.1984 (Annexure 1) in so far as it relates to the land of village Baridih, Ratu Thana No. 237 having a total area of 30.30 acres under the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).
2. Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners’ mother Late Lalin Madan Kumari executed a registered Will in their favour on 21.1.1978 with regard to the said land. He submitted that a probate case was filed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being Probate Case No. 59 of 1986 and the same was decided by judgment dated 17.12.1992 in favour of the petitioners. The objectors filed F.A. No. 57 of 1993(R) in this Court and ultimately the same was decided in petitioners’ favour by judgment dated 31st July, 1998. Thereafter, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid Gazette Notification (Annexure 1) published on 1.4.1984. He further submitted that even otherwise the petitioners are entitled to opportunity of hearing being the heirs of their mother Late Lalin Madan Kumari. He further submitted that the impugned notification has been issued without any notice or without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
3. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that a case was initiated against the petitioners’ mother being Rural L.C. 349 of 1973-74 and after thorough enquiry, the lands were acquired having been found surplus and, accordingly, the said notification dated 1.4.1984 was issued and a copy of the same was served on the petitioners on 25.3.1986 but they sat tight and then filed this writ petition only in December, 2002. He further submitted that the said Will was executed after the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970 and, therefore, the authorities were entitled to enquire whether the same was executed to defeat the purpose of the Act or not, and such enquiry was made in which the landholder was duly noticed and 30.30 acres of land was found excess of ceiling limit and, accordingly, it was acquired and the proposal for settlement of the lands in question has already been sent which is pending approval.
4. It appears from the orders passed in this writ petition that the original record of L.C. Case No. 349 of 1973-74 was called for. It appears that despite several order passed by this Court, the original record could not be traced out. Now it is said that a First Information Report has been lodged against the erring officer of the concerned department for misplacing the said record. Thus no useful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending awaiting the said record.
5. No document has been annexed with the counter affidavit in support of the said contention that notice was served on the petitioners or their mother in the said enquiry. The original records are also not available to verify this aspect.
6. In the circumstances, the matter is remitted back. Petitioners and the Circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ranchi are directed to appear before the Additional Collector (Land Ceiling) Ranchi (respondent No. 3) in connection with L.C. Case No. 349 of 1973-74 on 5th September, 2007 at 11 a.m. the said authority will open a supplementary record of the case and enquire into the entire matter and will pass orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to cooperate, failing which, the respondent No. 3 may pass ex parte order. The operation of the impugned notification dated 1.4.1984 (Annexure 1} shall remain stayed till a fresh decision is taken by the respondent No. 3. It goes without saying that consequential orders will follow pursuant to such decision taken by respondent No. 3. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the respective cases of the parties.
7. Before parting with this case, I wish to observe that the lodging of the said First Information Report may not remain a formality only. Misplacement/Loss of record is a serious matter. All the concerned persons should ensure that the guilty person(s) are identified and action is taken against them as per the law. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. However, no costs.
Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Manjul Prasad for needful.