Patna High Court
Arun Kumar Pandey And Ors vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 19 August, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18312 of 2016
======================================================
1. Arun Kumar Pandey and Ors
2. Dhrub Kumar Pandey Both sons of Late Ram Nandan Pandey
3. Ram Kumari Devi W/o Late Ashok Kumar Pandey
4. Pankaj Kumar Pandey
5. Payoj Kumar Pandey
6. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey All sons of Late Ashok Kumar Pandey All are
residents of village - Marar, P.S. Belsand, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Sitamarhi.
4. The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Belsand, Sitamarhi.
6. The Circle Officer, Belsand, Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy- Gp18
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-08-2025
Heard the parties.
(A) PRAYER:
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the
following relief(s):
(i) for issuance of an appropriate
writ, order, direction to quash the order
dated 19.09.2015 passed by Hon'ble
Chairman of the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
2/25
in BLT Case No. 239/2015 whereby and
where under the Hon'ble Tribunal was
pleased to dismiss the application filed on
behalf of petitioners to grant of option under
the provision of Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Act, 1961as which as already
provided by the learned Additional Member
Board of Revenue in District Sitamarhi Case
No.50/1996 filed on the petition Under
Section 32 of the Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Act, 1961 by which
petitioners were directed to approach the
Collector, Sitamarhi for exercise of option
for retaining the land of their choice in
accordance with law.
(ii) to quash the order dated
16.03.2012
passed in Ceiling Case No.40 of
74/78 of 93 by the learned Additional
Collector, Sitamarhi whereby and where
under the petition dated 15.02.2010 filed on
behalf of petitioners for exercise option
under section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Act, 1961 for retaining the
lands of their choice in accordance with law
and in pursuance of order dated 26.12.1997
passed by learned Additional Member of
Board of Revenue in this case no. District
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
Sitamarhi No. 50/1996.
(iii) for issuance of an appropriate
writ/order/direction granting any other relief
or reliefs for which the petitioners are found
entitled.
(B) FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The facts of the case in narrow compass is/are as
follows:
4. The petitioners are/were the land-holders claiming
themselves to be owners of class IV lands. Pursuant to the order
passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi on 26.06.1995 reopening the
case under Section 45B of 'the Act', the Additional Collector,
Sitamarhi after proper enquiry vide an order dated 10.10.1995
while allowing 30 acres each of class IV lands to Ashok Kumar
Pandey and Arun Kumar Pandey beside 20 acres to Dhurub
Kumar Pandey, declared 36.38 acres out of 126.38 acres land to
be surplus (Annexure-4 to the petition).
5. Aggrieved, the landholders filed objection under
Section 10(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling
Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (henceforth
for short 'the Act'). The Additional Collector, Sitamarhi took up
the matter and vide an order dated 22.12.1995 though accepted
some objections, finally declared 24.11 acres of land surplus and
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
gave direction for final publication under Section 22(1) of 'the
Act' (Annexure 5 to the petition).
6. The landholders filed Land Ceiling Appeal No. 02
of 1996 before the Collector, Sitamarhi who vide an order dated
03.06.1996 rejected the appeal and affirmed the reasoned order
dated 22.12.1995 passed by the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi
(Annexure 6 to the petition).
7. The matter went upto the Board of Revenue, Bihar
in Revision Case No. 50 of 1990 which was dismissed on
26.12.1997 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). It is relevant to
incorporate the concluding paragraph as the petitioners wanted
to get a leaf out of it at later stage.
I have perused the impugned
orders and all relevant documents. The Add.
Collector by his impugned order has
examined these points in considerable detail.
Four units in all have been allowed in
favour of Ram Nandan Pandey, Ashok
Kumar Pandey, Arun Kumar Pandey and
Chandrakala Devi. No unit has been granted
for Dhurub Pandey who on 09.09.70 was a
minor and therefore under the existing
Ceiling Act was not entitled to a unit. The
question of transfer of land to different
persons above has also been examined by
the learned lower Courts. The transfers
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
made were contravention of the Celing Act
with malafied intention and therefore the
question of excluding those transfer of land
from the total land held by the petitioners for
the purposes of calculation of ceiling merits
no consideration. The plea for exclusion of
land acquired by the Govt. for construction
of river bandhs and roads is not renable
because the owners are entitled for suitable
compensation under the relevant Act.
In respect of classification of
39.16 acres of land falling within bandhs of
Bagmati river into class V has been turned
down by the learned Addl. Collector
correctly as no evidence was adduced and
there is no reason to interfere with that. He
has held that this plea has been taken only to
defeat the provisions of the ceiling law. In
respect of 0.67 acres of land belonging to
Sheikh Iswail and Hari Shankar Singh alias
Hari Narayan Singh, no proof has been
given and therefore the claim is to exclude
that area from the total land held by the
petitioners is rejected. Dhurub Pandey, the
youngest son of Ram Nandan Pandey was
major while his father died in 1983 and
according to the Hindu inhertence law, he is
entitled to share I.3. 10 acres of land from
his deceased father.
In view of the above discussions,
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
there is no justification to interfere with the
orders of the learned Collector which is
upheld and the revision petition is dismissed.
Status quo granted by order dated
26.07.1996b is vacated.
The petitioner may approach the
Collector, Sitamrhi for exercise of option for
retaining the land of their choice in
accordance with law in this behalf.
Inform the concerned parties
immediately.
8. The litigation continued, the petitioners kept on
visiting different Courts starting with the Patna High Court
when CWJC No. 2912 of 1998 was preferred. It came to be
dismissed on 10.09.1998 with an observation that if the lands
were transferred by the original land-holders in between
05.05.1981, it cannot be treated to be land selected by other land
holders (Annexure 8 to the petition).
9. The concluding paragraph read as follows:
The appeal and then the revision
theereafter prefered by the petitioners were
rejected by the Impugned orders, as
constained in Annexure-6 & 7 to the writ
petition.
According to the counsel for the
petitioners, in terms with section 2(G), the
mortgagres separate land holders and their
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
lands should not have been clubbed for the
purpose of ceiling proceeding against the
land holder Ramanandan Pandey or the
members of the land holder's family and the
same should have been excluded from the
proceeding.
The aforesaic submission cannot
be accepted as the mortgagees themselves
became land holder in view of transfer of
such lands which had already beet made in
favour of mortgagees on 2nd of August, 1972
and 4th of August, 1972. Such transfers
having made after 9/09/1970 with or without
permission, are to be treated as lands
selected by the land holders for the purpose
of retention of their lands within their celling
unite in terms with Section 9(2) of the
Ceiling Act.
So far as the the lands transfered
in between 5/05/1981 and reopening of case
are concerned, such transfers of lands
should be treated to have been selected by
the transferer-land holders for the purpose
of retaining the same within their ceiling
units in terms with the aforesaid provision of
section 9(2) of the Ceiling Act. However, if it
was transferred by original land holder then
it cannot be treated to be land selected by
other land holders.
In the counter affidavit, it has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
stated that the mortgaged lands were
excluded from the purview of ceiling
proceeding which wan the reason to reopen
the case Under Section 458 thereof. It has
further been stated therein that the lands
transferred by landholders have been treated
to be land selected by them within their
ceiling unit in terms with section (2) of the
Ceiling Act.
In view of the aforesaid stand
taken by the Respondents State, I find no
reason to interfere with the impugned order.
If any notification has been issued U/S 15(1)
of the hat contrary to the scoressio stand of
the Respondents and the observation of this
Court. The petitioners may bring the same to
the notice of competent authority for
modification of the same.
The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed with aforesaid observation.
(Annuexure-8 to the writ petition)
10. Aggrieved, LPA NO. 1173 of 1998 was filed
which too was dismissed on 29.01.1999 by the Division Bench
headed by the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice holding that the
order under appeal cannot be faulted on any of the points urged
in this appeal. The relevant paragraphs read as follows:
The concept of ownership or title is
well known and it is also well settled in law
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
that a mortgage does not divest mortgager of
title in the land mortgaged. Further as noticed
earlier, admittedly the lands under mortgage
were subsequently and after the appointed
date transferred in favour of the mortgagees.
Hence, it has been rightly held by the learned
writ court that such lands will be deemed to
have been selected by the land-hoider within
its ceiling area in terms of Section 9(2) of the
Act.
The next point urged in this appeal
was with regard to the lands transferred in
between 05.5.1981 and reopening of the case.
The stand of the Respondent-State that such
transferred lands will also be covered by the
provision of Section 9(2) of the Act has been
accepted by the learned writ court.
Assailing the aforesaid view of the
learned writ court learned counsel for the
appellants relied upon an unreported
judgement of this Hon'ble Court dated 8 th
November, 1977 in C.W.J.C. No.509 of 1977
(Ramjanki Prasad and another Vs. The State
of Bihar and others). The said judgement has
no application to the facts of this case because
in the said case the State had resorted to
treating the transfers made between the first
proceeding and subsequent ceiling proceeding
initiated on account of amendment in the Act
as illegal and had annulled the transfer under
Section 5(1) (iii) of the Act. At the instance of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
the transferee such order of annulment was
quashed on the simple ground that no ceiling
proceeding was pending at the time of transfer
and hence Section 5(1) (iii) was not attracted.
In this case there has been no order of
annulment and the validity of the transfer has
not been affected and hence in such a situation
the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act have
rightly been applied.
Thus, the order under appeal
cannot be faulted on any of the points urged in
this appeal and, accordingly, this appeal is
dismissed.
(Annexure 9 to the writ petition)
11. The petitioners thereafter moved before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 1771 of 2000/Civil
Appeal No. 7770 of 2001 which too was dismissed on
09.05.2008 after observing that the appellants were afforded
adequate opportunity before passing the order declaring certain
lands as surplus lands and all the relevant aspects having been
duly considered by the hierarchy of revenue authorities as well
as High Court, we do not find any valid ground for interference
(Annexure 10 to the petition).
12. Important paragraphs of the order dated
09.05.2008 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is/are incorporated
hereinbelow:
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
4) Heard Mr. Lakshmi Raman
Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and
Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent-State.
5) The only point for consideration
in this appeal is whether the appellants have
made out a case for interference in the
impugned order of the Division Bench of the
High Court and earlier orders of Revenue
Authorities?
6) Learned counsel appearing for
the appellants mainly contended that after
inordinate delay of 14 years, the Collector
was not justified in re-opening a concluded
proceeding in
Section 9(2) Where the land held by
the land-holder includes land transferred by
him in accordance with or in contravention of
the provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1)
of section 5, the land so transierred in
accordance with or in contravention of clause
(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 shall, to the
extent of the ceiling area admissible to the
land holder, be deemed to have been selected
by him for retention within the ceiling area,
and where the total area of such land is less
than the ceiling area admissible to him, the
land holders shall select the balance of ceiling
area from his remaining land:
Provided that where the land SO
transferred in accordance with or in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
contravention of clause (ii) of sub-section (1)
of Section 3 is equal to or more than the
ceiling area admissible to him and if because
of the selection under sub-Section (2) the land
holder's homestead cannot be trained within
his ceiling area, the land holder may be
permitted to hold his homestead subject to a
maximum limit of two acres only."
"Section 45-B- State Government
to call for and examine records- The State
Government [or the Collector of the dist4rict
who may be authorized on his behalf] may, at
any time, call for and examine any record of
any proceeding disposed of by a Collector
under the act and may, if it thinks fit, direct
that the case be reopened and disposed of
afresh in accordance with the provisions of the
Act.
"Omitted by Act 8/97."
8) Insofar as the first contention
regarding re-opening of the case under
Section 45-B of the Act is concerned, it is seen
that the District Collector, finding fault with
the disposal of the case, re-opened the case
after issuance of show cause notice and after
hearing the objection of the land holders. A
reading of the above provisions, mainly
Section 45-B, makes it clear that after
affording an opportunity to the land holder,
the Collector of the District (since omitted by
Act No.8/97) or the State Government call for
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
and examine any proceeding and direct the
case to be re-opened and dispose of afresh. In
absence of any time limit, the action taken by
the Collector in order to ascertain the
actual/eligible land holdings, cannot be
faulted with. However, the said provision
mandates that aggrieved person must be
afforded an opportunity by way of show cause
notice. It is seen from the order of the
Additional Collector, the show cause notice
was issued to the land holder and they were
heard on the point of draft publication prior to
passing of the order. The order further shows
that the enquiry report was received from the
Circle Officer, Belsand, regarding the
partition taken place between the members of
the family of the lard holders. The order
further shows that after taking into
consideration all the relevant facts, the order
regarding the draft publication was passed on
10.10.1995. Accordingly, we reject the
contention of the appellants.
9) Coming to the other contention,
it is seen from the materials that Ram Nandan
Pandey and Rajendra Pandey on
Collector of the District (since
omitted by Act No.8/97) or the State
Government call for and examine any
proceeding and direct the case to be re-opened
and dispose of afresh. In absence of any time
limit, the action taken by the Collector in
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
order to ascertain the actual/cligible land
holdings, cannot be faulted with. However, the
said provision mandates that aggrieved person
must be afforded an opportunity by way of
show cause notice. It is seen from the order of
the Additional Collector, the show cause
notice was issued to the land holder and they
were heard on the point of draft publication
prior to passing of the order. The order further
shows that the enquiry report was received
from the Circle Officer, Belsand, regarding the
partition taken place between the members of
the family of the lard holders. The order
further shows that after taking into
consideration all the relevant facts, the order
regarding the draft publication was passed on
10.10.1995. Accordingly, we reject the
contention of the appellants.
9) Coming to the other contention,
it is seen from the materials that Ram Nandan
Pandey and Rajendra Pandey on 11.2.1966
had mortgaged 6 Bigha 15 Katha and 6 Bigha
4 Katha 10 Dhur to Md. Kuddus and Md.
Alam respectively and both the land holders
executed registered sale deeds in favour of the
mortgagees on 4.8.1972 and 2.8.1972
respectively. It further shows that at the time
of passing of the order of draft publication, the
issue had already been discussed at length and
the title of the land was not transferred. The
mortgaged land is essentially considered as
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
the land of the land holder. In those
circumstances, the mortgage of the land in
1966 cannot be considered as a transfer prior
to 9.9.1970. Admittedly, the lands were
transferred by registered sale deed after
9.9.1970 and the title has passed only
thereafter.
10) As per the provisions of Sectior:
18 read with Section 2(eee) of the Act, Ashok
Kumar Pandey and Arun Kumar Pandey were
allowed to retain 30 acres of Class IV land
each by treating them major on 9.9.1970 and
both the land holders have inherited 10 acres
each after the death of their father. After
coming into force of the Act, no person can
hold the land beyond the ceiling limit after the
appointed day i.e., 9.9.1970.It is further seen
that Ashok Kumar Pandey hos inherited 10
acres of land from his father and after the
death of his father he was holding 40 acres of
land. Similar situation was there in the case of
Arun Kumar Pandey. Taking note of all these
relevant materials. the Additional Collector,
by proceedings dated 22.12.1995, arrived at a
conclusion that an extent of 24.11 acres of
land is left as surplus and declared the same
as surplus land.
11) The abovementioned erder of
the Additional Collector was duly considered
by the Collector and by order dated 3.6.1996
after finding no error, he refused to interfere
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
and dismissed the appeal. The revision filed
against the order of the Collector was heard
by the Board of Revenue. The Additional
Member of the Board also considered the
relevant materials including the orders passed
by the Additional Collector, Collector and
other documents and concurred with the
decision. In fact, the Board has permitted the
appellants herein to approach the Collector
for exercise of option for retaining the land of
their choice in accordance with law.
12) Dissatisfied with the order of
the Revenue Authority, the appellants took the
matter to the High Court. The learned single
Judge correctly concluded that transfers made
on 2.8.1972 and 4.8.1972 having been made
after 9.9.1970 with or without permission be
treated as lands selected by the land holders
for the purpose of retention of their lands
within their ceiling units in terms of Section
9(2) of the Act and dismissed their writ
petition. The said order of the learned single
Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench.
13) As pointed out earlier, in view
of Section 45-B of the Act. and the fact that
the transfers of land in favour of mortgagees
on 2.8.1972 and 4.8.1972 having been made
after the notified date, i.e., 9.9.1970 without
prior permission from the authority
concerned, the same are to be treated as
lands selected by the land holders for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
purpose of retention of their lands within
their ceiling units and consequently, the
orders of Revenue Authorities cannet be
faulted with. It is also not in dispute that the
show cause notice was issued to the
appellants and thereafter after affording a
further opportunity, an order was passed
determining their surplus land.
14) In view of the statutory
provisions and of the fact that the appellants
were afforded adequate opportunity before
passing the order deciaring certain lands as
surplus lands and all the relevant aspects
having been duly considered by the hierarchy
of revenue authorities as well as the High
Court, we do not find any valid ground for
interference. Consequently, the appeal fails
and the same is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
(emphasis added)
13. The petitioner once again tried to test the order of
Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. D 18862 of
2008 in Civil Appeal No. 2770 of 2001 which too was
dismissed on 23.09.2008 (Annexure 11 to the petition).
14. Meanwhile, the notification under Section 15(1)
of 'the Act' was published vide notification no. 1538 dated
19.08.2008 as the matter came to rest after dismissal of the case
of the petitioners up to the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
1771 of 2000/Civil Appeal No. 7770 of 2001 on 09.05.2008
(Annexure 12 to the writ petition).
15. However, the petitioners were not in a mood to
part with their surplus lands. They filed Misc. Case No. 03 of
2008 before the Hon'ble Miniter, Revenue and Land Reforms
Department, Bihar for the reopening of case under Section 45B
of 'the Act'.
16. The Hon'ble Minister took up the matter and vide
an order dated 10.05.2010 after taking note of the facts as well
as different orders up to the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that no
case is made out for the reopening of the case. It was
accordingly rejected (Annexure 13 to the petition).
17. Thereafter, the petitioners opened a new avenue
and wanted the respondents to allow them to choose the lands to
be retained by them. Accordingly, on 15.12.2010, a petition was
preferred before the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi with a
prayer that they should be allowed to exercise option for
retaining the lands of their choice in the ceiling units allotted to
them. The ground taken for seeking an option was that while
dismissing Revision Case No. 50 of 1996 on 26.12.1997, the
Board of Revenue had allowed option to be exercised. The same
came to be dismissed on 16.03.2012 (Annexure-14 to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
petition).
18. It is to be noted that the said order was passed by
the Board of Revenue on 26.12.1997. The petitioners thereafter
being dissatisfied with the order challenged the same and lost up
to the Hon'ble Supreme Court a decade later which followed
final publication under Section 15(1) of 'the Act. The move to
get the case reopened under Section 45B of 'the Act' too was
dismissed on 10.05.2010. The petitioners preferred CWJC No.
1705 of 2015 (Arun Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State & Ors),
it was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.01.2015 granting liberty to
the petitioners to move before the Bihar Land Tribunal
(henceforth for short 'the B.L.T.') (Annexure 16 to the writ
petition).
19. Thereafter, they moved before the Bihar Land
Tribunal in BLT Case No. 239 of 2015 (Arun Kumar Pandey
& Ors. vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.). 'The B.L.T.' dismissed
it on 19.09.2016 and it is important to incorporate paragraphs 5
to 7 of the order which read as follows:
5. Having lost their case before all
forum the petitioner filed petition dated
15.12.2010 before the Additional Collector,
Sitamarhi with a prayer that they should be
allowed to exercise option for retaining the
lands of their choice in their ceiling unit.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
The Additional Collector considering the
case of the petitioner rejected it vide order
dated 16.12.2001
on the ground of their non
appearance on many dates. It has been
stated by the petitioners that the petitioners
appeared before the Additional Collector on
29.12.2010 and 14.1.2011, but subsequently
due to illness of Dhrub Kumar Pandey they
could not appear in the said case and no
pairvi could be made. It has also been stated
that the petitioners have no knowledge about
the order dated 16.3.2012. Only after the
recovery of Dhrub Kumar Pandey on
10.12.2014 the petitioners filed a chirkut for
obtaining certified copy of the order which
was supplied to them on 15.12.2014. In this
circumstances the petitioners again moved
before the Hon'ble High Court and filed
C.W.J.C.No.1705 of 2015 which was
disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to
move before the Bihar Land Tribunal and
thus the present application has been filed.
6. A counter affidavit has been
filed by the State in which it has been stated
that the land holders were allowed to retain
70 acres of land, 30 acres to Ashok Kumar
Pandey, 30 acres to Arun KumarPandey and
10 acres to Dhrub Kumar Pandey out of
total 126.38 acres. The land holder had
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
transferred 1.32 and 27 acres of land. Out of
this 1.37 acres were transferred prior to
9.9.70 and 0.90 acres were the residential
land which were deducted still 24.11 acres
land were found to be surplus and direction
was issued for publication of gazette under
Section 11(1) of the Act. The appeal and
revision preferred by the petitioners were
also dismissed. In the mean time petitioners
filed application before the Hon'ble High
Court, the Supreme Court and those
applications were also / dismissed. Finally
gazette notification under Section 15(1) of
the Act was published and the Circle Officer
was directed to distribute the land vide
notification contained in Memo no.1538
(Rev) dated 19.8.2008. The land holder
thereafter filed an application on 15.12.2010
for exercising option under Section 9 of the
Ceiling Act. More than one opportunity was
given to the petitioners for submitting the list
of the lands desired to be retained by them,
but the petitioners did not appear for
pursuing their application on different dates
neither submitted the list of desired lands. In
the facts and circumstances their application
dated 15.2.2010 was rejected by the
Additional Collector, Sitamarhi vide order
dated 16.12.2010. The Subdivisional Officer,
Belsand thereafter directed the Circle
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
Officer to distribute the land acquired as
surplus amongst the beneficiary vide Memo
no.449/Revenue dated 27.3.2012. The only
intention of the petitioners is of lingering the
matter and to keep the land in question un
distributed for long time, despite the fact
that they are no more entitled for retaining
these lands.
7. On consideration of the entire
materials before me I find that the
petitioners have made all efforts but every
where they lost their case. Despite all these,
proper opportunity had been given to them
by the Additional Collector for submitting
the list of lands they want to select and
retain in their unit, but that opportunity
was also not availed by them. For some
time the matter remained pending on this
ground also. The petitioners have not been
able to make any good ground for
interfering in this matter as such the prayer
made by them in this application can not be
allowed. This application is dismissed.
(emphasis added)
20. Still aggrieved, the present writ petition.
(C) PETITIONER'S CASE:
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in
view of the order passed by the Board of Revenue in the year
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
1997, the petitioners were entitled to have an option, though on
the dates fixed by the Additional Collector, due to illness, they
could not present themselves, that could not have been a ground
for the Additional Collector, Sitamarhi to reject the claim. Thus,
they are entitled for the option and 'the B.L.T.' clearly erred in
discussing the petition.
(D) STATE's CASE:
22. Learned State Counsel on the other hand submits
that a perusal of the order passed by the Board of Revenue
would show that it was passed in the year 1997. The revision
petition was dismissed, the stay granted was vacated, however,
it was only observed that if the petitioner so want, can choose
options. The submission is that the petitioners instead of
exercising option, fought the battle right from Patna to Delhi,
lost at all the stages, this followed the notification under Section
15(1) of 'the Act' in the year 2008. They, thereafter
unsuccessfully tried to get the matter reopened under Section
45B of 'the Act'. Once the same was dismissed on 10.05.2010,
only to continue the litigation, this modus operandi was
adopted. The contention is that they cannot turn around on the
1997 order to have an option once the notification stands issued
under Section 15(1) of 'the Act'. However, even then, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
Additional Collector, Sitamarhi gave an opportunity which they
failed to avail. As such, the writ petition be dismissed with cost.
(E) FINDINGS:
23. This Court has recorded all the facts of the case
leading to the notification that was issued under Section 15(1) of
'the Act' in the year 2008. It is to be noted that at every stage,
the petitioners got an opportunity and only thereafter the 15(1)
notification issued. The petitioners unsuccessfully tried to get
the matter re-opened by filing petition before the Hon'ble
Minister, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Bihar was
dismissed on 10.05.2010. Only thereafter, the petitioners harped
upon the Board of Revenue's order in the year 1997 and tried to
resolve the issue in the garb of an option. Clearly, the purpose of
the petitioners is/are to anyhow save the lands by keeping the
litigation for an infinite period and in that background, despite
the passage of half a century, this land ceiling case is still
continuing.
24. Lots of water has flown down the ganges after the
Board of Revenue's order passed in the year 1997 inasmuch as
their writ petition, the appeal, the Special Leave Petition as also
Review Petition were dismissed by the Patna High Court and
Hon'ble the Supreme Court which followed notification under
Patna High Court CWJC No.18312 of 2016 dt.19-08-2025
Section 15(1) of 'the Act'. The Hon'ble Minister, Revenue and
Land Reforms, Bihar too dismissed the prayer for the reopening
of the case under Section 45 of 'the Act'.
25. The petitioners are clearly abusing the process of
law and the time has come to put the same to an end. This Court
do not find any fault in the reasoned order passed by 'the
B.L.T.'. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of
Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the Chief Minister Relief Fund in next
four weeks. Failure to do so, the steps be taken for the
realization of the amount from the petitioners in accordance
with law.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 22.08.2025
Transmission Date
