Jay Singh Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14068 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Jay Singh Yadav

2. Vijendra Yadav Both sons of Late Deo Narain Yadav

3. Rajendra Yadav

4. Yogendra Yadav Both sons of Late Surpat Yadav

5. Mushai Yadav @ Mushal Yadav Son of Late Ramji Yadav

6. Padma Nand Kumar Son of Bidya Nand Yadav

7. Smt. Kiran Mala Devi W/o Rudal Prasad Yadav

8. Shyama Nand Yadav Son of Late Ledhai Yadav

9. Ram Bilas Yadav

10. Anant Lal Yadav @ Andlal Yadav Both sons of Late Bhupi Yadav

11. Keshari Chand Singh Son of Late Babu Lal Yadav

12. Ram Kumar Yadav Son of Late Thakai Yadav All resident of village - Koskapur Tola Ramghat, P.S. Narpatganj, District - Araria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Hon'ble Minister, Deptt. of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Collector, Purnia

4. The Additional Collector, Araria

5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Araria

6. The Circle Officer, Narpatganj, P.S. & Anchal Narpatganj, District - Araria

7. Saryug Singh Son of Late Kusum Lal Singh

8. Ram Ashish Singh Son of Late Kusum Lal Singh

9. Chandan Kumar Singh Son of Late Dinesh Singh

10. Sheo Narain Singh

11. Kishore Singh

12. Ram Kumar Singh

13. Arjun Singh No. 9 to 12 sons of Ganpat Singh

14. Anil Kumar Singh Son of Late Shankar Singh No. 7 to 14 are residents of village - Koskapur Tola, Laska, Police Station - Narpatganj, P.O. Khaira, Koskapur, District - Araria

15. Rabbi Mushar Son of Kanik Musahar

16. Sonai Mushar Son of Prem Musahar

17. Jitan Mushar Son of Rampat Musahar

18. Brihaspat Musahar Son of Dhathuri Musahar

19. Bhubaneshwar Musahar Son of Sainku Kusahar

20. Saryug Musahar Son of Sundar Musahar

21. Most. Lengri Widow of Moti

22. Subodh Lal Musahar Son of Jagrup Musahar

23. Thakan Musahar Son of Gena Musahar

24. Babujan Musahar Son of Hathi Musahar

25. Achin Lal Musahar Son of Tettar Musahar

26. Saten Mochi Son of Rabbi Mochi

27. Kanik Mochi Son of Rabbi Mochi

28. Rabbi Paswan Son of Mukhtar Paswan

29. Baijnath Paswan Son of Mukhtar Paswan

30. Manori Mochi Son of Suman Mochi

31. Mahabir Mochi Son of Bhim Mochi

32. Sadanand Mochi Son of Janak Mochi

33. Jitu Dom Son of Govind Dom

34. Rameshwar Dom Son of Govind Dom

35. Rameshwar Mochi Son of Toffi Mochi

36. Sukur Musahar Son of Kankir Musahar

37. Most. Sattni Daughter of Late Sri Lal Musahar

38. Most. Jiriya Wife of Late Kankir Musahar Respondent Nos. 15 to 38 residents of village - Koskapur, P.S. Narpatganj, District - Araria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.M.S. Khan Mr. Chandra Bhushan Das For the Respondent nos.1to6 : Mr. Ajay, GA-12 Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha, AC to GA-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned GA-12 appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 6. The grievance of the petitioners in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that in the light of the observations made by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 04.01.2011 passed in LPA No.1299 of 2009 (Annexure-2), they filed Misc. Land Ceiling Case No.

01 of 2012 (Araria) under Section 45B of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 ( in short 'Land Ceiling Act') for reopening of the original Land Ceiling Case No.54 of 1976-77 of erstwhile District of Purnia now the District Araria, but till date the aforesaid case filed on behalf of the petitioners has not been disposed of by the respondent no.

Land Ceiling Act.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the purchasers and all the purchases were made prior to 09.09.1970. Therefore, according to him, the lands in question are required to be excluded after reopening of the original Land Ceiling Case. Learned GA-12 appearing on behalf of the official respondents submits that the issues of facts are required to be examined by the respondent no.2, at the first instance, by looking into the relevant records and documents/materials produced by the parties, and merely on the bald statement of the petitioners those issues cannot be decided in their favour.

It is true that the issues, which have been raised in the aforesaid Misc. Land Ceiling Case regarding the lands in question, are required to be examined by the respondent no.2 at the first instance by looking into the relevant records of the original Land Ceiling Case started against the land holder(s) as also the documents produced by the petitioners, but that matter cannot be kept pending for an unending period. Evidently, the aforesaid Misc. Land Ceiling Case was filed in the year 2012 and despite passage of more than three years that has not been disposed of till date. Every litigant has a legal right to approach the competent court/authority for redressal of his/her grievances. The competent court/authority cannot sit tight over the matter and cannot deny justice to any litigant/citizen by keeping the matter pending for an indefinite period. In all fairness, the aforesaid Land Ceiling Case filed on behalf of the petitioners ought to have been disposed of by the respondent no.2 by now.

However, be that as it may, in the given facts of the

case, the present writ petition is disposed of with a request to the respondent no.2 to take up the aforesaid Misc.Land Ceiling Case No.01 of 2012 (Araria) on priority basis and all endeavours should be made to dispose of the same, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Till the aforesaid Misc.Land Ceiling Case No.01 of 2012 (Araria) is finally disposed of by the respondent no.2, the petitioners shall not be dispossessed from the lands in question, fully detailed in para-5 of the writ petition, if not already dispossessed.

The writ petition stands finally disposed of with the observations and directions made above.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U