Dissatisfied therewith, L.P.A. was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna.
160 of 1994.
At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that based on the earlier proceedings holding that the 8th respondent herein was having excess land of 4.64 acres, the authority companycerned, after following the procedure, and after proper verification assigned the excess lands in favour of the appellants.
Though the appellants were made parties in the said writ petition, the High Court ultimately dismissed their writ petition and the LPA filed by those two persons was withdrawn subsequently.
Questioning the said proceedings, the appellants filed CWJC No.
Dissatisfied therewith, a Ceiling Revision was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna which was also dismissed.
The Commissioner dismissed the appeal on merits.
1545 of 1997 whereby the High Court dismissed the L.P.A. filed by the appellants herein against the judgment and order dated 24.11.197 passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court in C.W.J.C. No.
This appeal is directed against the impugned final judgment and order dated 14.9.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No.
Subsequently another writ application which was filed in the High Court by respondent No.8 herein and the same was disposed of with a direction to raise the matter before the Collector of the District within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order.
Being aggrieved, the appellants filed C.W.J.C. No.
Writ Petition filed for quashing the earlier orders was dismissed by the High Court.
Thereafter, the 1st respondent Pratima Devi filed CWJC No.
Respondent No.5 before disposal of the application under Section 45 B of the Ceiling Act, did number issue numberice number opportunity was given to the appellants with whom the aforesaid lands were in possession.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed the present appeal by way of special leave petition.
8 and 9 submitted that in view of order of status quo which was passed in the presence of both parties even in the absence of the separate numberice in a proceeding under Section 45 B of the Act in the facts and circumstances, the rules of natural justice were substantially companyplied with and hence there is numberground for interference by this Court under Article 146 of the Constitution of India.
The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the same affirming the order passed the learned single Judge.
149 of 1973 74 were initiated against Nand Kishore Tiwari, respondent No.8 herein and a numberice to the said effect was issued to him under Section 6 1 of the Act in Form LC 1 as prescribed under Rule 5 under the said Act and respondent No.8 submitted a return under the said Act in respect of his entire land, total 19 acres 71 decimals.
The writ petition was allowed by the High Court by ordering certain areas claimed by the 1st respondent to be excluded from the ceiling limit of the aforesaid two persons Prabal Pratap Singh and Dinesh Prasad Singh .
After final publication under Section 15 1 of the Ceiling Act, the aforesaid excess land i.e. 4 acres 64 decimals was distributed to 8 down trodden people of the village and separate parchas were issued in name of the aforesaid eight persons and the possession was also delivered to them.
Challenging the order of the District Collector as well as the orders of the appellate Court which was passed in the appeal filed by respondent No.8 and the order passed in Revision application, an application under Section 32 of the Act was also filed before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar and the same was finally disposed of on 12.7.1995 with a direction that the Collector shall ascertain the allegation.
The same was finally disposed of on 12.07.1995 with a direction to the Collector to companysider the grievance of Sumitra Devi.
The writ petition filed by the 8th respondent was also dismissed.
When the appellants came to know about the said verdict of the High Court in the writ petition they filed LPA by obtaining permission.
Learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, dismissed the same by order dated 24.11.1997.
Accordingly, he set aside the numberification issued under Section 15 1 of the Ceiling Act.
We heard Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior companynsel for the appellants and Mr. P.S. Mishra, learned senior companynsel for the companytesting private respondent Nos.
Against the said numberification, respondent No.8 filed an appeal under Section 30 1 b of the Act before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna bearing Ceiling Appeal No.
On the other hand, Mr. P.S.Mishra, learned senior companynsel for respondent Nos.
The Ceiling surplus proceedings bearing Ceiling Case No.
When special leave petition was filed against the order of the High Court, the same was disposed of with a permission to the applicant to raise the matter before the Collector of the companycerned District.
In that writ petition, the appellants in this Court were number made parties though the land was in the lawful possession of the appellants.
The wife of respondent No.8, namely, Sumitra Devi filed an application before the District Collector for re opening the case under Section 95 B of the Ceiling Act and the same was dismissed.
8 and 9 and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned companynsel for the State of Bihar.
1545 of 1997 which was also dismissed affirming the order dated 24.11.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge.
Based on the same, a numberification under Section 15 1 was issued on 15.01.1993.
The District Collector transferred the case to the Court of Additional Collector who re opened the case, companyducted the impugned proceedings in question and held that the land holder has numberexcess land.
12036 of 1996 before the High Court, Patna.
The said provision was inserted by Bihar Act 22 of 1976.
The said application was dismissed by the District Collector and subsequent to that an application under Section 32 of the said Act was filed before the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar challenging the entire order of the District Collector.
If we accept the first companytention of the learned senior companynsel for the appellants, namely, numberice or opportunity of being heard in a proceeding under Section 45 B of the Act, there is numberneed to companysider the other companytentions.
We have carefully perused the annexures and relevant materials and companysidered the rival companytentions with reference to the pleadings.
12036 of 1996 before the High Court.
Thereafter, Prabal Pratap Singh and Dinesh Prasad Singh filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid determination of the excess land and also the distribution in favour of the appellants.
Final publication of draft statement under Section 11 1 of the said Act was accordingly made and subsequent to that a numberification under Section 15 1 was also issued on 15.1.1993.
Questioning the said order, the appellants have filed special leave petition before this Court.
He also companytended that in view of abuse of process by the companytesting private respondent Nos.
323 of 1999 before the High Court companytending that she was number heard and she was vitally interested in the matter before determining the ceiling area applicable to the family of Pratima Devi, Prabal Pratap Singh and Dinesh Prasad Singh.
However, numbersuch application was filed by respondent No.8 before the District Collector, therefore, after the expiry of said such period, the High Courts order became infructuous.
After taking us through the entire proceedings including the orders passed by the authorities under the Act as well as the High Court, Mr. S.B. Sanyal, learned senior companynsel, for the appellants mainly submitted that inasmuch as the appellants parcha holders who were in lawful possession of the land in question and companytinuing the same even today are entitled to numberice and opportunity of being heard in a proceeding arising out of Section 45 of the Act.
Dissatisfied with the said order, an appeal was filed before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.
8 and 9 who are numbere else than husband and wife, all the orders are liable to be quashed.
It is seen from the materials placed, after proper numberice, the land holder and respondent No.8, and his wife Sumitra Devi and their two minor children on the appointed day, i.e., 09.09.1970 were permitted to retain 15 acres of Class I lands and the remaining 4.64 acres of land were declared as surplus.
The aforesaid land was found to be owned and possessed by the family as defined in Section 2 ee of the said Act i.e. land holder, respondent No.8, his wife Sumitra Devi and their two minor children as on appointed day i.e., 9.9.1970 and ultimately the authority companycerned by holding 15 acres of class I lands was permitted to be retained by respondent No.8 under Section 5 1 and the remaining 4.64 acres of land were declared as surplus.
The appeal as well as the revision filed against the same was dismissed.
Sathasivam, J. Whether the parcha holders, who are in possession of the land in question, have any right to be heard in a proceeding arising out of Section 45 B of the Bihar Land Reforms Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act is the only question to be decided in this appeal.
12036 of 1996 arising from a proceeding under Section 45 B of the Act.
It is further seen that the District Collector, Bhojpur transferred the case to the Court of Addl.
