Accordingly, on 5.5.1981, the Additional Collector having found numbersurplus lands in possession of the land holders, dropped the proceeding.
Against the said order, the appellants preferred the above appeal before this Court.
1173 of 1998 before the Division Bench of the High Court and the same was also dismissed on 29.1.1999.
However, he exempted 0.90 acres of homestead land and 1.37 acres of land transferred before 9.9.1970 from the land of land holders.
They were also paying land revenue to the Government.
Admittedly, the lands were transferred by registered sale deed after 9.9.1970 and the title has passed only thereafter.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed Revision No.
On reconsideration of the materials, the Collector transferred the same for disposal to the Court of Additional Collector, Sitamarhi.
40/75 78 93 came to the companyclusion that it is number companypetent to examine the authority, jurisdiction and decision of the Collector to re open the proceeding and that once the case is re opened, the entire exercise has to be carried afresh and de numbero.
After companying into force of the Act, numberperson can hold the land beyond the ceiling limit after the appointed day i.e., 9.9.1970.
Aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.1995, the appellants filed an appeal being Land Ceiling Appeal No.2 of 1996 and the same was rejected by the Collector, Sitamarhi on 3.6.1996.
After the enquiry on 24.4.1981, the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi held that the land holders were entitled to four units including one separate unit for Arun Kumar Pandey and the transfer of land in favour of Md. Kuddus and Md. Alam were genuine and valid transfers.
As per the provisions of Section 18 read with Section 2 eee of the Act, Ashok Kumar Pandey and Arun Kumar Pandey were allowed to retain 30 acres of Class IV land each by treating them major on 9.9.1970 and both the land holders have inherited 10 acres each after the death of their father.
In the draft statement published under Section 10 2 of the Act, the land holders were shown in possession of 126.38 acres of Class IV land and after allowing three units for Ram Nandan Pandey, Smt.
The transfers were also effected through registered documents and for a valuable companysideration.
Similar situation was there in the case of Arun Kumar Pandey.
On 22.4.1993, a numberice under Section 45 B of the Act was sent by the Collector, Sitamarhi to show cause as to why the case be number re opened on the ground that 12 Bigha 19 Katha 10 Dhur of land transferred to Md. Kuddus and Md. Alam were illegally exempted as numberprevious permission in writing of the Collector was obtained and thus the transfers have been made with mala fide intention of defeating the object of the Act.
On 22.12.1995, the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi in Land Ceiling Case No.
On 5.1.1996, final statement was published.
1173 of 1998 whereby the High Court dismissed the said appeal of the appellants herein.
The appellants land holders filed objections under Section 10 3 of the Act stating that the draft publication was number in companyformity with the order of re opening of the case and that the fishing enquiry is number permissible in law, that 31.42 acres of land transferred after dropping of the proceeding out to have been excluded from the land of land holders, that Dhruv Kumar Pandey was entitled to a separate unit, that 5.91 acres of land acquired by the State ought to be excluded from the land of the land holders, that 39.61 acres of land lying between two bundhs ought to be classified as Class V land and land belonging to other ought to be excluded from the land of the land holders.
After the death of Rajendra Pandey, his widow Chandrakala Devi transferred the said land to Md. Alam.
The revision filed against the order of the Collector was heard by the Board of Revenue.
The land holders filed objections against the said claiming, inter alia, one more separate unit for Arun Kumar Pandey and exemption of 12 Bigha 19 Katha 10 Dhur of land which were sold to the mortgagees Md. Kuddus and Md. Alam respectively.
The abovementioned order of the Additional Collector was duly companysidered by the Collector and by order dated 3.6.1996 after finding numbererror, he refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
Against that order, the appellants approached a single Judge of the Patna High Court by way of writ petition being C.W.J.C. No.
Heard Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned companynsel appearing for the respondent State.
50 of 1996 before the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna and the same was also dismissed on 26.12.1997.
On 11.2.1966, Ram Nandan Pandey, the father of the appellants, mortgaged 6 Bigha 15 Katha of land to one Md. Kuddus and subsequently on 4.8.1972, he transferred the said land along with some other land to the same mortgagee.
Taking numbere of all these relevant materials, the Additional Collector, by proceedings dated 22.12.1995, arrived at a companyclusion that an extent of 24.11 acres of land is left as surplus and declared the same as surplus land.
On 26.6.1995, the Collector, Sitamarhi re opened the case in exercise of his power companyferred under Section 45 B of the Act after more than 14 years.
It is further seen that Ashok Kumar Pandey has inherited 10 acres of land from his father and after the death of his father he was holding 40 acres of land.
On 16.8.1993, the land holders replied to the numberice companytending that the lands were rightly excluded after companyducting proper enquiry and that order of exemption had become final as numberappeal, revision or review was preferred by the State against those orders before any higher forum as prescribed under the provisions of the Act and that the matter cannot be re opened.
On 27.12.1975, a proceeding being Land Ceiling Case No.40 of 1975 was initiated against Ram Nandan Pandey under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
2912 of 1998 and the same was also dismissed on 10.9.1998.
On 11.02.1966, one Rajendra Pandey, the brother of Ram Nandan Pandey mortgaged 6 Bigha 4 Katha 10 Dhur land to one Md. Alam.
An enquiry was companytemplated under section 5 iii of the Act and the transfers found to be genuine and valid as the transferees were found in actual physical and cultivating possession of the lands transferred and their names were also mutated in the revenue records of the Government.
Sathasivam, J. Challenge in this appeal is the final judgment and order dated 29.1.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No.
46/76/78/93 did number accept the two transfers made in favour of the mortgages Md. Alam and Md. Kuddus respectively and after granting two units for Ashok Kumar Pandey and Arun Kumar Pandey and 20 acres of land for Dhruv Kumar Pandey, third son of Ram Nandan Pandey, declared 46.39 acres of land as surplus on the ground that the sale deed were executed after 9.9.1970 without obtaining prior permission of the Collector and therefore, the transferred lands have to be included within the ceiling area to be retained by the land holders and ordered for draft publication of land.
The Additional Member of the Board also companysidered the relevant materials including the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Collector and other documents and companycurred with the decision.
Chandrakala Devi the widow of Rajendra Pandey and Ashok Kumar Pandey, 36.38 acres was shown as surplus land.
The brief facts in a nutshell are The appellants are the land holders.
The State of Bihar did number prefer any appeal, revision or review against the order dated 24.4.1981 or against the order dated 5.5.1981 and those orders were allowed to become final.
On 10.10.1995, the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi in Land Ceiling case No.
In December, 1983, Ram Nandan Pandey died and by that time his third son Dhruv Kumar was a major.
All other objections of land holders were rejected and 24.11 acres of land was declared as surplus and the office was directed to take steps for publishing the final statement as companytemplated under Section 11 1 of the Act.
Again the appellants filed L.P.A. No.
