Jailal Yadav @ Gope and Others vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—In this case the Petitioners have challenged the orders passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 21/73-74 and the notification issued u/s 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Ceiling Act'').

As the case can be disposed of on short point it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one.

The aforesaid land ceiling case was started against Jadunandan Gope alias Jedunandan Yadav, father of first Petitioner, Jailal Yadav (alias Jailal Gope). In the said case notification u/s 10(2) of the Ceiling Act was issued and objection was called for. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms finally passed order on 14th of March, 1988 and declared certain land surplus. Thereafter the final notification u/s 11(1) and then notification u/s 15(1) of the Ceiling Act were issued. The Petitioners who claimed to be the co-sharers of the original land holder their grievance is that they were not heard nor any unit was allowed in. their favour. According to them, they are raiyats and land holders of their own raiyat and for that they were also entitled for separate notice and units. It is further stated that the original land-holder, Jadunandan Gope against whom the ceiling proceeding started died in the year 1974 and without substitution of heirs the orders were passed and impugned notifications were issued.

According to the Respondents, no objection was preferred by the land holder, Jadunandan Gope nor the Petitioners made any claim before the authorities. There was nothing on record to suggest the date of death of Jadunandan Gope and in such circumstances the legal heirs could not be substituted. The plea of majority of any of the Petitioner was never raised before the Collector and so no decision was given in this respect.

From the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the State, it will be evident that the impugned orders were passed and notifications were issued without notice and hearing the Petitioners. This apart, from the order dated 14th of March, 1988 I find that it was passed expert as no objection was preferred by the land-holder u/s 10(3) of the Ceiling Act. Admittedly the Ceiling Act was amended vide Act No. 55 of 1982 and Section 32-B was inserted, still no fresh proceeding was started from the stage of Section 10 after insertion of Section 32-B. In the aforesaid circumstances, I set aside the orders passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 21/73-74 and the consequential notifications issued under Sections 11(1) and 15(1) of the Ceiling Act respectively. The case is remitted to the Respondents for a decision afresh, if they so choose, after substitution of the heirs (Petitioners) and notice to the concerned parties.

The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.