IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No 467 of 2008
THAKUR JAI SINGH & ANR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
2 14.07.2008 The petitioners state that an agriculture land ceiling
proceeding was initiated against late Girja Nandan Singh and another
against the ancestor of the petitioners. Late Girja Nandan singh, in his
return, allegedly showed certain lands and stated in respect of those
lands that they belong to the ancestor of the petitioners, thus, disowning
any right therein. Petitioners simultaneously claimed those lands as part
of their land as the dispute between the two families were ultimately
resolved by this Court holding that those lands belong to the petitioners.
In the ceiling proceeding, as against the petitioners, no surplus land was
found which included those lands. But in the proceedings against Girja
Nandan Singh though he had showed those lands not to be his, those
lands declared surplus. Petitioner, on coming to know of this, filed an
application under Section 45B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act before the Collector
in 1992. While the proceedings were pending, Section 45B was
amended and the jurisdiction of the Collector was taken away and
invested on the State Government. Collector has recently taken up the
proceedings and ultimately dismissed the application on the ground that
in view of the amendment, he had no jurisdiction left in the matter. He
further held that the application of the petitioners did not give full
particulars. Petitioners state that the said application, which was filed
2
much later, was only for expeditious hearing of the matter. The
Collector did not look into the original application which had all
particulars hidden.
In my view, the matter is simple. If lands of petitioners were
held to be within ceiling area which lands included the lands in dispute
then merely because they were declared ceiling surplus in another
proceeding would not enable the Collector to issue parcha and/or to
distribute the land because the same land cannot be subject matter of
two different proceedings.
Let State Counsel take detailed instructions in the matter and
file a comprehensive counter affidavit so that the case may be disposed
of at the stage of admission itself.
In the meantime time, no further parchas would be issued in
respect of petitioners’ land nor petitioners’ possession would be
disturbed. In any view of the matter, petitioners should bring on record
both the orders of the original authority in respect of this ceiling
proceedings and in respect of proceedings as against late Girja Nandan
Singh.
Supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. Let
it be kept on record.
Put up “For Admission” after four weeks.
Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
State.
M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)