LETTERS PATENT APPEAL 14308 of 2019 on 27 June 1974

1. Manjur Alam alias Sheikh Manzur Alam Son of Late Sk. Zahiruddin @Zahiruddin, Resident of Village-Kursel, Post Office-Jhaua, Police Station-Kadwa, District-Katihar.Zahiruddin, Resident of Village-Kursel, Post Office-Jhaua, Police Station-Kadwa, District-Katihar.

2. Sheikh Faiqur Rahman Son of Late Sk. Zahiruddin @ Zahiruddin Residentof Village-Kursel, Post Office-Jhaua, Police Station-Kadwa, District-Katihar.of Village-Kursel, Post Office-Jhaua, Police Station-Kadwa, District-Katihar.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar Bihar.

2. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department ,Government of BIhar, Patna-800001.Government of BIhar, Patna-800001.

3. The Collector, Katihar.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Katihar..

5. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Katihar.

6. The Circle Officer, Kadwa, District-Katihar.

7. Karshu Rai Son of Late Phagu Rai Resident of Village-Kursail, POst ofice-Jhaua, POlice Station-Kadwa, District-Katiahr.Jhaua, POlice Station-Kadwa, District-Katiahr.

8. Singhu Rai Son of Late Phagu Rai Resident of Village-Kursail, POst ofice-Jhaua, POlice Station-Kadwa, District-Katiahr.Jhaua, POlice Station-Kadwa, District-Katiahr.

9. Rajnu Rai Resident of Village-Kursail, POst ofice-Jhaua, POlice Station-Kadwa, District-Katiahr.Kadwa, District-Katiahr.

10. Gorau Chaudhary Son of Gaya Chaudhary Resident of Village-Kursail, POstofice-Jhaua, POlice Station-Kadwa, District-Katiahr.ofice-Jhaua, POlice Station-Kadwa, District-Katiahr.

10-05-2022

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================Appearance :For the Appellant/s: Mr.Najmul HodaFor the Respondent/s: Mr.Suresh Prasad Sah @ Baranwal ======================================================CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR andCORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARANORAL ORDERORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The challenge to the order in the present appeal has been passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14308 of 2019, whereby thelearned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellantsherein for quashing the Gazette notification no. S.O. 2868 dated01.10.1976 issued by the Revenue & Land ReformsDepartment, under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act,1961, declaring certain lands to be surplus.

The case of the appellants is that against the originalland holder, namely, Harihar Prasad Das, a Land Ceiling casewas initiated vide Case No. 492 of 1966-67 in which, it washeld that there was no surplus land with him.

Before such an order could be passed in the landceiling case referred to above, aforesaid Harihar Prasad Das haddied. However, prior to his death, he has gifted the land inquestion to his wife, namely, Jiwchi Devi as his son wasdifferently abled.

Aforesaid Jiwchi Devi is said to have sold the land inquestion by a sale deed dated 27.06.1974 to the appellants. Theland admeasures 2.27 acres and is carved out from plot nos. 169and 170, appertaining to Khata No. 163.

It further appears from the records that pursuant to aGazette notification dated 01.10.1976, the lands belonging to Harihar Prasad Das was found to be surplus which actually isthe land which appears to have been sold to the appellants.

The case of the appellants before the learned SingleJudge was that they had no idea about the Gazette notificationand they had purchased the land only on coming to know of thefact that the DCLR had decided about Harihar Prasad Das nothaving surplus land, in the proceedings initiated in that regardway back in the year 1972. Thus, it was highly inappropriatefor the Government to have issued the notification holding theland which already is in possession of the appellants to besurplus land of the family of Harihar Prasad Das.

The learned Single Judge was of the view that rakingup this issue after 43 years of Gazette notification wasmeaningless.

We fully endorse the view of learned Single Judgethat such issue could not have been raised at such a belatedstage without there being any explanation whatsoever for suchdelay. The reasons assigned by the appellants, namely, their lackof knowledge about the proceeding in the year 1976 holding theland to be surplus, is not at all satisfactory as it is not supportedby any cogent oral or documentary evidence. Apart from this,we also find that the land in question, namely, the land which sunilkumar/- U

was found to be surplus has already been settled with the privaterespondents.

Thus, finding no fault with the order of the learnedSingle Judge, we dismiss this appeal but without costs.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)