IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.15884 of 2010
HARENDRA MISHRA, S/O- LATE MADHAV MISHRA, R/O-
VILLAGE PARWAHA, P.S.- FARBESGANJ, DISTRICT- PURNEA.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE COLLECTOR, PURNEA, DISTRICT- PURNEA.
3. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, PURNEA, DISTRICT- PURNEA.
4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FARBESGANJ, DISTRICT-
PURNEA.
5. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR, FARBESGANJ,
DISTRICT- PURNEA.
6. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, FARBESGANJ, DISTRICT- PURNEA.
7. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, ARARIA, DISTRICT- ARARIA.
For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Prem Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Amrita, G.P.-10
Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Upadhyay, A.C. to G.P. 10
-----------
9 19.04.2011 In a petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing
of part/portion of the District Gazette Notification No. 9 dated
30.04.1994 under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)
Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) so far as it relates to the land
of the petitioner. It is stated that in the year 1954, family
members of the petitioner purchased land in question
detailed in paragraph 4 of the writ petition from Sadanand
Jha and Jeevanand Jha and thereafter they came in
peaceful possession over the said land inasmuch as
jamabandi in respect of the purchased land was also
created in the name of the purchaser who were paying land
rents against receipts issued to them. In Land Ceiling Case
No. 83/1972-73, part of the aforesaid land was included.
2
Without issuing notice to the petitioner, the same was
declared surplus in the hands of the land holder.
A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.
7 and 8 have been filed which is on record. In the counter
affidavit, the respondents have averred as under in
paragraph Nos. 11 and 12:
“(11) That in the matter averred in para no.
10 of the writ application, it is humbly
submitted that the order passed by Hon’ble
High Court was produced before appellate
court as it appears from the case record.
It is further submitted that the S.D.O.,
Araria, in the light of the order passed by
the appellate court heard the ceiling case
where in the purchase of Gopal Mishra vide
sale deed No. 1778 dated 24.8.1954 was
declared legal & genuine and it was
directed to delete 6.61 Acres of land from
the ceiling case including the plot no. 2608.
It is also submitted that out of the total area
only 4.46 Acres was declared surplus in
mistake which requires to be deleted from
the category of surplus land. As it is an
error on the part of the record and
respondents after getting the information
have taken steps for the denotification of
the land declared surplus.
(12) That in the matter raised in paragraph
no. 11 it is humbly submitted that the claims
of the purchaser land owner were
considered and purchase of area of 6.61
Acres was admitted as genuine and it was
directed to delete the same from the
aforesaid ceiling case. The declaration of
4.46 Acres land as surplus land seems to
be an error which requires to be rectified
and for this proper steps are being taken for
the denotification of the surplus land.”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
3
in view of the statements made in the counter affidavit, it
appears that the respondents have realized their mistake
and have taken corrective measures. It is submitted that the
authorities may be directed to denotify the lands which have
already been found wrongly included in the notification
issued under Section 15(1) of the Act(Annexure-3).
Having heard the parties, the application is
disposed of by the following order:
Let the respondents take appropriate steps in
the light of averments made in the counter affidavit and de-
notify the lands as soon as possible preferably within 12
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the
order.
( Kishore K. Mandal, J)
pkj