IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.3532 of 2004
1. ASHARFI KUAR , WIFE OF LATE RAMADHAR SINGH
2. RAJ KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMADHAR SINGH
BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE ATRAWANA, P.S. ITARHI, DISTRICT BUXAR.
------ PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COLLECTOR, BUXAR AT BUXAR
2. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, LAND REFORMS, BUXAR
3. THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND REFORMS, BUXAR, DISTRICT BUXAR
------- RESPONDENTS
For the petitioners :- Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, Adv.
For the State :- Ms. Kumari Amrita, S.C. I (C)
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, A.C to S.C. I (C)
-----------
5 13.9.2010 The petitioners are aggrieved by the
order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated
17.9.2003 by which the Member, Board of
Revenue has directed that there should be a
fresh enquiry with respect to the
classification of the petitioners’ lands.
The matter was reopened under Section 45B of
the Bihar Land Ceiling Act. Several points
have been raised by the petitioners, but the
main point which has been argued in this
case is that the lands in question would not
come within class II category of lands
rather they would come under class III
category of lands by virtue of the
provisions of Section 4 of the Bihar Land
Ceiling Act.
2
Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that he fears that the finding of
the Collector, Buxar holding that the lands
of the petitioners fall within the Sone
Command Area would prejudice his case and
would influence the enquiry, inasmuch it has
been stated by the Collector that lands
which fall within the Sone Command Area are
fertile lands and would come within the
category of class II lands. I may clarify
this aspect of the matter by referring to
the earlier enquiry report which is
contained in Annexure-4 dated 19.2.1999.
According to the earlier enquiry report, it
appears that the village where the lands are
situated fall at the tail end of the Sone
Command Area and in fact do not have
irrigation facilities. It is also apparent
from the enquiry report that the tube well
has been installed on the petitioners’
lands. The dispute lies in the fact that
the petitioners’ claim that the tube well
was installed in 1974 whereas the enquiry
report states that the tube well was
installed in the year 1968-69. The said
finding in the enquiry report is ex-parte
3
finding based on the statements given by
villagers. The name of the villagers who
have made statements before the enquiry
officer has not been recorded in the enquiry
report. This Court finds that such a
finding cannot be relied upon as it does not
even note down the name of the persons who
have been examined by the enquiry officer,
leave alone the requirement of recording
their statement in the presence of the
petitioners.
Therefore, this Court confirms the
operative part of the order of the Member,
Board of Revenue and directs that the
petitioners should be given notice of the
enquiry and specific statement should be
recorded with respect to whether the tube
well was installed before the cut off date
i.e. 9.9.1970 or after the cut off date, as
this would be a relevant factor for deciding
the classification of the lands.
This writ application is disposed of
with the aforesaid directions.
Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)