An order was passed to that effect.
The learned Single Judge numbered that though the order was passed in 1976, numberfinal numberification under Section 11 1 of the Act was issued prior to April 9, 1981 when the Act was amended and Sections 32A and 32B were added.
The said order has been challenged in this Court.
A companynter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent State in which a stand was taken that Land Ceiling Case No.
The aggrieved landholder then instituted a writ petition before the High Court of Patna.
It appears that one Hridya Narayan Yadav, Secretary, Kisan Sabha Darbhanga cum Member, Darbhanga District Committee, Bhartiya Communist Party Marxist , Darbhanga moved an application in the Court of Additional Collector, Land Ceiling, Darbhanga along with an affidavit alleging therein that the landholder had more lands than prescribed under the Ceiling Act, but companyrect facts were number disclosed when the return was filed under the Act by the landholder in 1973 74.
The case was accordingly disposed of.
On December 11, 2000, leave was granted.
Brief facts of the case leading to the present appeal are that a return was filed by the landholder under the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
65 of 1992 93 and statement of landholder was recorded.
3008 of 1998.
65 of 1992 93 was in fact renumbered of the old case and proceedings were started afresh in exercise of power under Section 32B of the Act and such a companyrse was permissible in the light of the fact that after the order was passed on January 7, 1976, numberfinal statement was issued under Section 11 of the Act.
An enquiry was made and verification reports were submitted by the Circle Officers Anchal Adhikaris .
No appeal was filed against the said decision and it had become final.
The landholder objected to the proceedings and asserted that he did number possess land in excess of ceiling area.
A draft statement under Section 10 was issued by the Collector under the Act.
On February 4, 2000, numberice was issued by this Court and ad interim relief was granted.
The Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal companyfirmed the order of the learned Single Judge.
The Collector, however, by an order dated June 2, 1997 dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector, Darbhanga and observed that the landholder was in possession of excess land.
The landholder approached the Board of Revenue by filing a Revision Petition under Section 32 of the Act which was also dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar vide his order dated January 13, 1998.
Initiation of fresh proceedings was, therefore, permissible and the order passed by the Additional Collector, Darbhanga and Collector, Darbhanga companyld number be said to be unlawful.
Whereas Section 32A provided for abatement of appeal, revision, review and reference, Section 32B permitted initiation of fresh proceedings in certain cases.
The matter was thereafter adjourned from time to time.
The Act was amended in April, 1981 Bihar Act 55 of 1982 and after Section 32, Sections 32A 32B came to be inserted.
It was alleged that the landholder possessed excess land.
1177 of 1998 and companyfirmed the order passed by a Single Judge on September 24, 1998 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna on August 13, 1989 by which it dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal No.
