Khalilur Rehman @ Tetna, Bibi Mariam and Bibi Majun Nissa vs The State of Bihar and Others

Birendra Prasad Verma, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 to 4. However, none is appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and 6 despite valid service of notice upon them. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity, propriety and correctness of the entire proceeding of Miscellaneous Ceiling Appeal No. 109 of 1991 initiated by the respondent District Collector, Kishanganj as also the different orders passed there in that proceeding.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the purchasers of the land under dispute through a registered deed of sale executed by the respondent No. 6. The respondent No. 5 lodged her claim of pre-emption u/s 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short "the Land Ceiling Act") on the ground that she happens to be the co-sharer of the vendor, which gave rise to Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1988-89. After hearing the parties by final order dated 01.03.1989 (Annexure-1) passed in Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1988-89, claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of the respondent No. 5 was rejected. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 filed Ceiling Appeal No. 437 of 1988-89/80 of 1990-91 before the respondent District Collector, Kishanganj. Aforesaid Ceiling Appeal preferred by the respondent No. 5 was also finally dismissed by a reasoned and speaking order dated 30.03.1991 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent Additional Collector, Kishanganj.

The grievance of the petitioners in the present proceeding is that though claim of pre-emption raised on behalf of the respondent No. 5 was dismissed by the original authority, which was affirmed by the appellate authority, thereafter fresh ceiling appeal could not have been entertained by the respondent District Collector, Kishanganj in terms of Section 30 of the Land Ceiling Act. If the respondent No. 5 was at all aggrieved by the orders contained in Annexure-1 and 2, then she could have filed a revision application u/s 32 of the Land Ceiling Act, but instead of filing revision application, she filed a fresh appeal before the respondent District Collector, Kishanganj, which has been illegally entertained and was even admitted for final hearing.

As noticed above, none is appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 to oppose the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners. The learned State counsel has not been able to point out any provision under the Land Ceiling Act, whereunder fresh appeal could have been entertained by the respondent District Collector, Kishanganj.

After having heard the parties, and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that entire proceeding in Miscellaneous Ceiling Appeal No. 109 of 1991 initiated by the respondent District Collector, Kishanganj and the orders passed thereunder are wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Land Ceiling Act, which cannot be sustained in law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Entire proceeding of Miscellaneous Ceiling Appeal No. 109 of 1991 pending before the respondent District Collector, Kishanganj and the orders passed thereunder are hereby set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.