Ratan Shankar Mishra, Pran Mohan Mishra, Indu Mohan Mishra and Kaushalendu Mishra vs The State of Bihar, The Collector, The Additional Collector and Member, Board of Revenue

Birendra Prasad Verma, J.—The petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 11.3.1991 (Annexure-2) passed by the respondent Additional Collector, Khagaria, in Land Ceiling Case No. 38 (Kha) of 1981-82 (State v. Naresh Mohan Mishra), the order dated 7.7.1992 (Annexure-3) passed in Land Ceiling Appeal Case No. 5 of 1991-92 by the respondent District Collector, as also the order dated 26.9.1992 (Annexure-4) passed in Board''s Case No. 157 of 1992 by the respondent Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder claims raised on behalf of the petitioners with respect to the lands in question on the basis of alleged purchase made by them in the year 1972 have been rejected, and the lands in question have been treated to be the lands of the landholder-Naresh Mohan Mishra. It is not in dispute that in the Land Ceiling Case No. 38 (Kha) of 1981-82, started against the land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra, the lands in question claimed by the petitioners were also included and were finally declared surplus treating the lands to be of the land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra. All the petitioners claim to be purchasers of different areas of lands and, admittedly, all the purchases were made on single date, i.e., on 22.4.1972. Any transfer made by the land holder after 9.9.1970, the appointed date, without previous written permission of the Collector is void ab initio in terms of Section 5(1)(ii) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short Land Ceiling Act). However, interest of the transferees of transfers made after 9.9.1970 can be protected only in terms of Section 9(2) of the Land Ceiling Act provided the land holder accepts about such transfers made by him.

In the present case, the petitioners claim to be purchasers not only from land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra, but from some other persons also. But those persons have not been impleaded as party respondents. Even land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra has not been impleaded as a party respondent in the present proceeding. By recording concurrent findings of facts, the respondent Additional Collector, Khagaria, the respondent District Collector, Khagaria as also the respondent Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, by their orders as contained in Annexures-2, 3 and 4 respectively, have rejected the claim of the petitioners with respect to lands under dispute, and have treated all these lands to be the lands of the land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra. Therefore, in absence of necessary parties including the original land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra, it is not possible to decide the claim of the petitioners in the present proceeding under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, if the petitioners are bona fide purchasers from the land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra and/or from some other owners, then they have an appropriate alternative remedy u/s 45B of the Land Ceiling Act for getting the original land ceiling case reopened by the State Government for the purpose of exclusion of lands allegedly purchased by the petitioners. Such order for exclusion of lands claimed by the petitioners can be passed only after hearing all the concerned parties including the land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra, the other vendors of the petitioners, if any, and all other concerned parties.

In above view of the matter, the present writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate application before the State Government u/s 45B of the Land Ceiling Act for re-opening of the Land Ceiling Case No. 38(Kha) of 1981-82 initiated and concluded against the land holder-Naresh Mohan Mishra. If such a petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners, after impleading all the necessary parties within a period of six weeks from today with a certified copy of the present order, then the State Government shall be obliged to consider and decide their claims in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

Since the matter has become very old, it is expected that the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners u/s 45B of the Land Ceiling Act shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within a maximum period of nine months from the date of filing of the application by the petitioners. The writ petition stands finally disposed of with observations and directions made above, but without costs.