Sri Ramchandra Bhagwanji vs The State of Bihar
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16019 of 2004
CNR No. BRHC010312382004
======================================================
Sri Ramchandra Bhagwanji and Seven other Deities through its Shabait
1.
Rajnish Choudhary, resident of Village- Rampur, P.S.- Katihar, District-
Katihar.
Rajnish Choudhary S/o Late Ramesh Prasad Choudhary resident of Village-
2.
Rampur, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar.
Ashish Choudhary S/o Late Ramesh Prasad Choudhary resident of Village-
3.
Rampur, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Collector-Cum- District Magistrate, Katihar.
3. The Collector-Cum- District Magistrate, Purnea.
4. The Additional Collector, Ceiling, Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Firoz Raza, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, Advocate
Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar, GP-24
Mr. Anuj Kumar AC to GP-24
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 03-11-2026
Heard Mr. Syed Firoz Raza, learned senior counsel,
assisted by Mr. Rajan Ghoshrave, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Anuj Kumar, learned A.C. to G.P.-24 for the
State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
2/33
2. The present writ application has been filed for
quashing Notification No. 3060 dated 26.10.2004 issued by the
Collector, Purnea (respondent No. 3), in respect of Land Ceiling
Case No. 1169 of 1973-74, whereby certain lands of the
petitioners situated in different Mauzas of the districts of
Katihar and Purnea have been declared surplus and acquired for
distribution.
3. The petitioners contend that the impugned Gazette
notification is in violation of the interim order dated 19.12.1994
passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994 and the
order dated 11.11.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7323 of 1996, as
the same lands situated in the aforesaid districts had already
been dealt with in Land Ceiling Case Nos. 17 of 1973-74 and
202 of 1973-74 by the Collector, Katihar, through different
orders which were challenged before this Court. During the
pendency of the present writ application, the aforesaid two writ
applications were disposed of by a common judgment dated
04.09.2013.
4. Brief facts of the case, in short, are that two separate
ceiling cases, bearing Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74
and Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74, were initiated
under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
3/33
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as “the Act”). Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74 related to
341.23 acres of land standing in the name of late Bishwanath
Choudhary and his family members, whereas, Land Ceiling
Case No. 202 of 1973-74 related to 261.85 acres of land
belonging to eight deities installed at Sita Ram Thakurbari,
represented through their Shebait, late Bishwanath Choudhary.
5. So far as Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74 is
concerned, the same was initiated with respect to the ancestral
lands of the family of late Bishwanath Choudhary held by them
in their individual and personal capacity. The landholder had
submitted his return, whereafter it was found that he and his
family members were in possession of 341.23 acres of land. A
draft statement was, accordingly, issued under Section 10(2) of
the Act, followed by objections filed by the landholder under
the relevant provisions of the Act.
6. The Additional Collector under the Act, by order
dated 24.07.1975, disposed of the objections filed by the
petitioners’ ancestor, Bishwanath Choudhary, and another
purchaser from the landholder. However, the said order was set
aside in appeal by the Collector, by order dated 10.09.1975,
with a direction for further inquiry under Section 5(1)(iii) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
4/33
Act. Thereafter, a fresh order dated 03.05.1976 was passed
under Section 10(3) of the Act by the DCLR/Collector under
the Act, holding that the transfers made by the original
landholder after the appointed date, i.e., 09.09.1970, in the
names of different persons were illegal and impermissible
under the provisions of the Act. The transfers made by the
landholder prior to the said date were, however, recognised.
Thereafter, the draft statement was finally published under
Section 11(1) of the Act.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, appeals were
preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Saharsa, by the
original landholder as well as the purchasers. The appeals were
dismissed by a common appellate order dated 13.09.1976.
Thereafter, the orders passed in the ceiling proceedings were
challenged before this Court in two separate writ applications,
namely, C.W.J.C. No. 4696 of 1979 and C.W.J.C. No. 654 of
1979. Both the writ applications were heard together and
disposed of by a common order dated 04.09.1979, whereby this
Court set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and
remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the appeals. While
the appeals on remand were pending before the Divisional
Commissioner, several amendments were made to the Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
5/33
including the insertion of Sections 32-A and 32-B, which came
into force with effect from 09.04.1981.
8. Consequently, the appeals pending before the
Commissioner abated under the amended provisions of the Act.
9. So far as Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74 is
concerned, the same was initiated in respect of the lands
recorded in the names of eight deities installed at Sita Ram
Thakurbari. The deities were represented through their Shebait,
late Bishwanath Choudhary, who had submitted a separate
return in respect of the lands held in their names. Thereafter, a
draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Act was prepared in
respect of the lands held by the deities. The revenue authorities
initially allowed only one unit for all the eight deities and
treated the remaining land as surplus. The claim for allowing
separate units to the eight deities was rejected by the Collector
under the Act as well as by the Appellate Authority. The
revision application preferred before the Board of Revenue
under Section 32 of the Act was also dismissed.
10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the deities,
represented through their Shebait, approached this Court by
filing C.W.J.C. No. 1889 of 1981. By judgment and order dated
30.06.1986, this Court held that the eight deities were separate
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
6/33
juristic persons and were entitled to separate units under the
Act. The orders passed by the revenue authorities, including the
order of the Board of Revenue denying separate units to the
deities, were set aside.
11. Accordingly, in terms of the judgment and order
dated 30.06.1986 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1889 of 1981, the
Additional Collector, Katihar, passed a consequential order
dated 28.04.1990, granting separate units to all the eight deities
to the extent of 240 acres of land and declaring only 21.85 acres
of land surplus in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74.
Thereafter, a notification under Section 15(1) of the Act was
published in April 1990, declaring the surplus land in Land
Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74 to have vested in the State.
12. Subsequently, in course of the proceedings in Land
Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74, observations were recorded by
the Additional Collector in the order dated 29.07.1992 with
regard to the earlier order dated 17.01.1985 passed by the then
Additional Collector (Ceiling), Sri S.K. Kumar. The Additional
Collector observed that a separate ceiling proceeding in the
name of Sita Ram Thakurbari, Rampur, bearing Land Ceiling
Case No. 202 of 1973-74, had already resulted in the grant of
240 acres of land to the eight deities. He further observed that it
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
7/33
could be beneficial to the State if the proceedings of Land
Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74 were also clubbed with those
of Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74.
13. In the aforesaid background, the Collector, Katihar,
passed an order dated 08.11.1993 reopening the ceiling
proceedings under Section 45B of the Act. The said order was
challenged before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994. The
petitioners contend that they had appeared before the Collector,
Katihar, pursuant to the notice issued in connection with the
proposed reopening and had raised objections, including an
objection regarding the competence of the authority to reopen
the proceedings under Section 45B of the Act. The objections
were rejected and the order dated 08.11.1993 was passed
reopening the proceedings. The petitioners further rely upon the
reference made in the order dated 08.11.1993 to the records of
the Purnea ceiling proceeding having been called for vide
Office Letter No. 570 dated 13.11.1990, as the facts discussed
in the Katihar proceeding also appeared in the Purnea case.
14. So far as the present writ application is concerned,
the same arises out of Land Ceiling Case No. 1169 of 1973-
74/25 of 1982-83, initiated by the Additional Collector, Purnea,
in respect of lands which, according to the petitioners, were
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
8/33
also the subject matter of Land Ceiling Case Nos. 17 and 202 of
1973-74 before the authorities at Katihar.
15. It is the case of the petitioners that the records of the
Purnea ceiling proceeding had been called for and considered
along with the aforesaid ceiling proceedings pending before the
authorities at Katihar, as the lands situated in both the districts
of Katihar and Purnea were dealt with together in Land Ceiling
Case No. 17 of 1973-74. Accordingly, the draft statement was
finally published in the District Gazette dated 01.12.1986 under
Section 11(1) of the Act, wherein the lands situated in Purnea
were also included.
16. The petitioners, therefore, contend that the Collector,
Purnea, had no jurisdiction to proceed independently with the
said ceiling case, particularly when the lands situated in Purnea
had already been included in the earlier ceiling proceedings.
According to them, the stand taken by the State that the lands
situated in Purnea had not been taken into consideration in
Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74 was contradicted by the
Gazette publication dated 01.12.1986, which was relied upon to
demonstrate that the lands situated in Purnea had also been
included and dealt with in the said proceedings.
17. It is further case of the petitioners that on 22.01.1993,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
9/33
they received a notice from the Court of the Collector, Katihar,
regarding the proposed reopening of Land Ceiling Case Nos. 17
and 202 of 1973-74 under Section 45B of the Act. Pursuant
thereto, they appeared before the Collector, Katihar, and raised
objections, inter alia, questioning the competence of the
authority to reopen the proceedings under the said provision.
However, the objections raised by the petitioners were rejected
and the Collector, Katihar, by order dated 08.11.1993, directed
the reopening of the ceiling proceedings.
18. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid order
dated 08.11.1993 made reference to the records of Land Ceiling
Case No. 1169 of 1973-74, pending before the authorities at
Purnea, which had been requisitioned vide Office Letter No.
570 dated 13.11.1990 for consideration along with the
proceedings pending before the Collector, Katihar. According to
the petitioners, this circumstance reveals that the ceiling
proceedings relating to Katihar and Purnea were interconnected
and that the lands situated in both districts had been considered
together.
19. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in
C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994, it was stated, particularly in
paragraph 32 thereof, that the interest of justice required that all
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
10/33
three ceiling cases, namely, Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-
74, Land Ceiling Case no. 202 of 1973-74 pending at Katihar
and Land Ceiling Case No. 1169 of 1973-74 pending at Purnea,
be merged and a fresh determination be made in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. The petitioners, therefore,
contend that the State authorities themselves recognised the
necessity of dealing with all three ceiling proceedings together.
20. This Court, by interim order dated 19.12.1994 passed
in C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994, granted interim protection in
respect of the lands which were the subject matter of the said
proceedings. The petitioners contend that the impugned
notification issued by the Collector, Purnea, was in
contravention of the aforesaid interim order.
21. During the subsistence of the interim order dated
19.12.1994 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994, the
Additional Collector (Ceiling), Katihar, passed a further order
dated 27.11.1995 in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74. By
the said order, the authority allowed only one unit for all the
eight deities and declared 210.77 acres of land surplus for
acquisition by the State. The said order was challenged before
this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7323 of 1996, filed on 26.07.1996.
22. In C.W.J.C. No. 7323 of 1996, this Court passed an
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
11/33
interim order dated 29.08.1997, which, according to the
petitioners, was subsequently confirmed by order dated
11.11.1997. The writ application was directed to be heard along
with C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994.
23. The petitioners contend that the order dated
27.11.1995 had been passed by reviewing the earlier order
dated 28.04.1990, whereby separate units had been allowed to
the eight deities and only 21.85 acres of land had been declared
surplus. According to the petitioners, the Additional Collector,
by applying the amended provisions of the Act, allowed only
one unit of 30 acres of land for all the eight deities and declared
the remaining 210.77 acres out of 240 acres surplus.
24. The aforesaid two writ applications, namely, C.W.J.C.
Nos. 3436 of 1994 and 7323 of 1996, were disposed of by a
common judgment dated 04.09.2013 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court.
25. In C.W.J.C. No. 7323 of 1996, the Division Bench
considered the earlier proceedings relating to the lands of the
eight deities, the judgment dated 30.06.1986 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 1889 of 1981 and the consequential order dated 28.04.1990
passed by the Additional Collector, Katihar. The Court observed
in paragraph 37 of the judgment that the issue regarding the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
12/33
entitlement of the eight deities to separate units had already
been decided by this Court and that the subsequent order dated
27.11.1995 could not be sustained. The relevant portion of
paragraph 37 reads as follows:
“37. …… neither the Collector of the District had
actually examined the records for reopening of Ceiling
Case No. 202/1973-74 nor the same is even otherwise
permissible in law. In this regard one has only to take
note of the fact that a separate ceiling proceeding was
started against the deities for 253.21 acres of Class III
land and in this ceiling proceeding, after all the eight
deities were allowed only one unit by the authorities, was
made subject matter of C.W.J.C. No. 1889/1981, wherein
this Court in its judgment dated 30.6.1986 had held that
the eight deities being separate juristic persons in whose
favour such transfer of land, in the name of such deities
itself were allowed way back in the year 1934, were
entitled to be given eight units. The following finding,
therefore, of this Court in the order dated 30.6.1986:
‘The deities are the petitioners here through the
Shebait. Board of Revenue had thought fit to
deprive the petitioners of their units under the
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area
and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961,
holding that the entire trust is governed by the
original deed of trust brought in the existence on
4.10.1934.
2. After traveling through various courts
and authorities the last pre-Board of Revenue
order is in favour of the petitioners. The matter
came before the Board of Revenue where the
claim of the petitioners that the original deed of
1934 was altered by the trustees and that
different properties were separately allotted to
each deities for the purpose specified in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
13/33
original deed. In other words, in the common
man parlance the single trust was bifurcated into
eight trust by registered deeds which ultimately
also received the approbation of the Bihar State
Hindi Religious Trust Board. The Board of
Revenue, refusing to accept the case of the
petitioners brought to his use two grounds which,
to say the least, were entirely spacious. One that
the bifurcation of the trust into eight trusts
amounted to a transfer which was hit by the
provisions of the Ceiling Act requiring
permission for transfer of property; secondly that
the registration by the Religious Hindu Trust was
some time in the year 1974 that is well after
9.9.1970. Taking up the first question first he has
not been able to state beyond a mere assertion of
law how the transaction amounted to a transfer
to a deity when the property already stated to be
dedicated to a deity by the original deed of trust.
He has also not stated clearly how he came to
this conclusion without stating the extent of the
actual land transferred. Bifurcation of property
already dedicated and transferred to several
deities cannot amount to a transfer within the
meaning of the Transfer of Property Act because
the deities, the transferees, were actual owner of
the property. Another aspect is that if it was a
transaction meant to defeat the ceiling Act then
perhaps something would have been raid but
there is transaction before 9.9.1970; so even if it
was a transfer it could only be hit if the transfer
was found to be for the reasons specified in that
section and for no other reason.
3. Splitting up of the trust and its
subsequent acceptance by the Hindu Religious
Trust Board induced the right to the deity to
claim one unit for each of them. In regard to the
second point even if the property has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
14/33
registered belatedly it does not do away with the
character that the transaction has endowed to the
property. There may be instances of belated
registration or no registration at all at the
instance of recalcitrant Shebait of dedicated
property but the property does not lose its trust
character by that.
4. The order of Board of Revenue is,
therefore, set aside and the impugned Annexure-
6 is quashed. The application is allowed
accordingly.’
had, therefore, conclusively decided the issue of grant of
eight units to the eight deities. The order of the Board of
Revenue holding that the eight deities were entitled for
only one unit was also quashed while allowing the
prayer of the eight deities petitioners to be entitled to
separate units. The order of this Court infact became
final and was also acted upon by the Additional
Collector (Ceiling) in his subsequent order dated
28.4.1990 while allowing 240 acres of land by way of
eight units for eight deities, declaring only 21.85 acres of
land as surplus, which was also acquired by the State
pursuant to notification issued and published under
Section 15(1) of the Act, as is apparent from Annexure-2
to C.W.J.C. No. 7323 of 1996. Such concluded
proceedings, in view of the aforesaid quoted order of this
Court in the judgment dated 30.6.1986 in C.W.J.C. No.
1889 of 1981 could not be reopened under Section 45B
of the Act……..” .
26. In the concluding paragraph of the judgment, the
Division Bench held that there was no justification for the
Additional Collector to review his earlier order dated
28.04.1990, whereby 240 acres of land had been allowed to the
eight deities and only 21.85 acres had been declared surplus,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
15/33
particularly when a Gazette notification under Section 15(1) of
the Act had already been published in April 1990. The Division
Bench further held that the change in law by deletion of Section
29(2)(a)(ii) of the Act could not have been a ground for
declaring 210.77 acres of land belonging to the deities surplus
for acquisition by the State. It was also held that the Act did not
confer upon the Additional Collector the power to review his
own order.
27. The Division Bench further observed that, as on
27.11.1995, neither the Additional Collector nor the Collector
of the district had the power to reopen a concluded ceiling
proceeding under Section 45B of the Act in view of the
amendments introduced through the Ordinances and the
Amending Act of 1995, by which the power to reopen such
proceedings had been vested exclusively in the State
Government. Accordingly, the order dated 27.11.1995 passed
by the Additional Collector, Katihar, was quashed and it was
held that the respondents would have no liberty to reopen the
proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74 in the
manner sought to be done by the said order.
28. With regard to C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994, the
Division Bench dismissed the writ application and upheld the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
16/33
order dated 08.11.1993 to the extent that it relates to reopening
of Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74. Since the proceedings
had remained stayed under the interim order dated 19.12.1994,
the interim protection was vacated with a direction to the
respondents to hold and conclude the proceedings in Land
Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74 afresh in accordance with law.
Thus, by the common judgment dated 04.09.2013, the Division
Bench distinguished between the two ceiling proceedings.
While the reopening of Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74
was upheld and the authorities were directed to conclude the
proceedings afresh in accordance with law, the order dated
27.11.1995 passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74
was quashed.
29. It is further the case of the petitioners that being
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 04.09.2013 passed
in C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994, Rajnish Choudhary preferred
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4785 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, wherein, according to the petitioners, the parties were
directed to maintain status quo .
30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
petitioners contend that the Collector, Purnea, had no
jurisdiction to issue the impugned Notification No. 3060 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
17/33
26.10.2004 with respect to the lands situated in different
Mauzas, including Mauza Rampur-75 (Anchal Katihar), Mauza
Ramnagar-Vanshi (Katihar), Kadaipur-76 (Katihar), Belwa-65
(Katihar) and Mehdai-66 (Katihar), and other lands in the
districts of Katihar and Purnea, as the said lands belonged to the
ancestors of petitioner No. 2 and to the eight deities and had
already been the subject matter of ceiling proceedings before
the competent authorities at Katihar.
31. The petitioners further contend that this Court had, by
its interim orders passed in the aforesaid writ applications,
granted protection in respect of the lands in question. Despite
the said orders and the subsequent judgment dated 04.09.2013
passed by the Division Bench, the Collector, Purnea, issued the
impugned notification declaring the lands surplus and directing
their acquisition for distribution, without taking into
consideration the earlier ceiling proceedings and the orders
passed therein.
32 . The petitioners, therefore, placed reliance upon the
common judgment dated 04.09.2013 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 3436 of 1994 and 7323 of
1996, filed by Sri Ramchandra Bhagwanji and seven other
deities. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon paragraph
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
18/33
37 of the said judgment, wherein the Division Bench held that
the issue regarding the entitlement of the eight deities to
separate units had already been decided by this Court and that
the subsequent order dated 27.11.1995 passed in Land Ceiling
Case No. 202 of 1973-74 could not be sustained.
33. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and submissions,
the petitioners seek quashing of Notification No. 3060 dated
26.10.2004 issued by the Collector, Purnea, in Land Ceiling
Case No. 1169 of 1973-74, contending that the impugned
notification has been issued in respect of lands which had
already been included in the earlier ceiling proceedings at
Katihar and without due regard to the orders passed by this
Court in the connected writ applications.
34. Learned senior counsel further submits that the lands
belonging to the eight deities installed at Sita Ram Thakurbari,
who were held by this Court to be separate juristic persons,
entitled to eight separate units under the Act in the earlier
proceedings arising out of Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-
74, have, in part, been wrongly included in Gazette Notification
No. 3060 dated 26.10.2004, issued by the Collector, Purnea, in
Land Ceiling Case No. 1169 of 1973-74/25 of 1982-83.
35. It is further submitted that a comparative statement
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
19/33
showing the names of the Mauzas, Khata numbers and Khesra
numbers of the lands covered by the Gazette notification dated
27.11.1995 issued in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74
and the impugned Gazette Notification No. 3060 dated
26.10.2004 has been furnished along with the supplementary
affidavit dated 29.08.2026. Learned senior counsel submits that
the lands claimed to be common to both the ceiling proceedings
have been specifically indicated in the said comparative
statement.
36. Upon perusal of the comparative statement furnished
along with the second supplementary affidavit dated
29.08.2026, and the particulars of the lands reflected in the
consolidated chart, this Court finds that certain lands covered
by the earlier Gazette Notification dated 27.11.1995 issued in
Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74 and the impugned
Gazette Notification No. 3060 dated 26.10.2004 appear to be
common in both the notifications. The particulars of the lands,
common in both notifications, as furnished by the petitioners
are set out hereinbelow:
Sl
No.
Name of Mauza Khata
No.
Khesra Nos.
1. Rampur (Thana No. 75) 123 85P, 131, 380,381,
382, 347, 70, 71,
141, 142, 582,
561, 578, 563,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
20/33
601, 163, 638,
602, 619, 620,
2. Belwa (Thana No. 65) 342 808, 886, 1006,
1059, 1270, 1271,
1273, 1274, 1275,
1276, 1277, 885,
324, 356, 357,
360, 361,365, 374,
343,990,1051,
1052,
3. Belwa (Thana No. 65) 189 359, 944, 948
4. Belwa (Thana No. 65) 268 949
5. Ramnagar-Vanshi (Thana
No. 9)
56 653, 655, 652,
654, 711
37. The aforesaid particulars prima facie indicate an
overlap between the lands covered by the two ceiling
proceedings. However, the precise identity and extent of the
common lands are required to be determined by a comparison
of the two gazette notifications published in Land Ceiling Case
No. 202 of 1973-74 and Land Ceiling Case No. 1169 of 1973-
74/25 of 1982-83.
38 . Learned senior counsel submits that in view of the
facts stated hereinabove and the Gazette notifications issued in
Land Ceiling Case Nos. 202 of 1973-74 and 1169 of 1973-
74/25 of 1982-83, the respondent ceiling authorities have
erroneously included certain lands belonging to the eight deities
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
21/33
in the latter ceiling proceeding, despite the earlier adjudication
by this Court recognizing the eight deities as separate juristic
persons entitled to separate units under the Act.
39. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the
common judgment dated 04.09.2013 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 3436 of 1994 and 7323 of
1996. Learned senior counsel submits that the two ceiling
proceedings involved distinct issues. While the reopening of
Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74, relating to the lands held
by late Bishwanath Choudhary and his family members in their
individual and personal capacity was upheld and the authorities
were directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law, the
order dated 27.11.1995 passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of
1973-74, relating to the lands belonging to the eight deities, was
quashed. The Division Bench held that the earlier judgment
dated 30.06.1986 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1889 of 1981,
recognizing the entitlement of the eight deities to separate units,
could not be disregarded and that the respondents had no liberty
to reopen the proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of
1973-74 in the manner sought to be done by the order dated
27.11.1995.
40 . It is, accordingly, submitted that the lands belonging
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
22/33
to the eight deities, which are claimed to be common to both
the aforesaid ceiling proceedings and have been included in the
impugned notification, are liable to be excluded from Gazette
Notification No. 3060 dated 26.10.2004. Learned senior
counsel contends that the inclusion of such lands, despite the
aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and the distinct
treatment required in respect of the two ceiling proceedings, is
illegal and arbitrary and that the impugned notification is liable
to be modified to that extent.
41. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the State,
while supporting the impugned Gazette Notification No. 3060
dated 26.10.2004 issued by the Collector, Purnea (respondent
No. 3), under Section 11(1) of the Act, submits that the
notification was issued upon completion of the statutory
proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No. 1169 of 1973-74/25 of
1982-83, initiated against the original landholder, Jai Narayan
Choudhary, son of late Gokul Choudhary, resident of village
Kajha, District Purnea.
42. It is submitted that Land Ceiling Case Nos. 17 of
1973-74 and 202 of 1973-74, initiated before the ceiling
authorities at Katihar, concerned, respectively, for the lands
held by late Bishwanath Choudhary and his family members in
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
23/33
their individual capacity and the properties recorded in the
names of the eight deities installed at Sita Ram Thakur Bari. On
the other hand, Land Ceiling Case No. 1169 of 1973-74/25 of
1982-83 was initiated before the Additional Collector, Ceiling,
Purnea, against Jai Narayan Choudhary, whose lands were
situated in both Purnea and Katihar districts. The mere fact that
the lands involved in the respective proceedings were situated
in the same districts would not, by itself, establish that the
proceedings related to identical holdings.
43. Learned counsel further submits that, during the
proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No. 1169 of 1973-74/25 of
1982-83 reports were called for from the Circle Officers of
Purnea East, Krityanandnagar, Dhamdaha and Katihar. Upon
finding that ceiling proceedings had also been initiated before
the Additional Collector, Ceiling, Katihar, the records were
requisitioned from the said authority. However, the Additional
Collector, Ceiling, Katihar, vide Letter No. 572 dated
13.11.1990, informed the authorities at Purnea that Land
Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74 had already been concluded,
wherein 42.42 acres of land had been declared surplus and
acquired.
44. It is next submitted that, after due enquiry,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
24/33
notification under Section 10(2) of the Act was published in the
Purnea ceiling proceeding, inviting objections under Section
10(3) of the Act. The heirs of Jai Narayan Choudhary, including
Muktinath Choudhary, filed objections, which were considered
and adjudicated by the Additional Collector, Ceiling, Purnea, by
order dated 23.01.1991. Thereafter, a notification under Section
11(1) of the Act was published. The appeals preferred by the
aggrieved landholders, bearing Appeal Case Nos. 224 of 1991-
92 and 225 of 1991-92, were decided by the Collector, Purnea,
on 24.08.2004, whereupon the final Gazette Notification No.
3060 dated 26.10.2004 was published under Section 15(1) of
the Act in the names of Muktinath Choudhary and others, being
the heirs of the original landholder.
45 . Learned counsel submits that the present writ
application challenges the aforesaid notification, although the
ceiling proceeding in which it was issued was initiated against
Jai Narayan Choudhary and not against the petitioner-deities in
their capacity as landholders. The State, accordingly, relies
upon the distinct origin and procedural history of the Purnea
proceeding and maintains that the impugned notification was
issued after consideration of the objections and disposal of the
statutory appeals.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
25/33
46. With regard to the common judgment dated
04.09.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 3436 of 1994 and 7323 of
1996, learned counsel submits that the said judgment dealt with
the order dated 08.11.1993 reopening Land Ceiling Case No. 17
of 1973-74 and the order dated 27.11.1995 passed in Land
Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74. While the challenge to the
reopening of Land Ceiling Case No. 17 of 1973-74 was
dismissed and the authorities were directed to conclude the
proceedings afresh in accordance with law, the order dated
27.11.1995 passed in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74
was quashed, with the specific direction that the concluded
proceedings in the latter case could not be reopened.
47. It is, however, submitted that the effect of the
aforesaid judgment upon the impugned notification in the
present writ application would have to be considered with
reference to the identity of the lands actually covered by the
respective proceedings and the terms of the final notification
dated 26.10.2004. The State's contention that the Purnea
proceeding was separately instituted cannot, by itself, resolve
the petitioners' specific assertion that certain plots covered by
the impugned notification had also formed part of the ceiling
proceedings at Katihar. The petitioners' claim of identity and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
26/33
overlap must, therefore, be examined with reference to the
relevant schedules, plot particulars and records of the respective
ceiling cases.
48. Learned counsel, accordingly, submits that the
impugned notification cannot be held invalid merely on the
ground that separate ceiling proceedings existed in the two
districts or that the earlier proceedings concerned lands situated
in Katihar and Purnea. The validity of the impugned
notification and the petitioners' entitlement to relief are required
to be determined upon examination of the actual lands covered
by the notification, the proceedings in which those lands were
dealt with and the legal effect of the judgment dated
04.09.2013. The State, therefore, supports the impugned
notification to the extent that it relates to lands covered by the
Purnea ceiling proceeding, subject to the binding effect of the
aforesaid judgment in respect of any lands established to fall
within the concluded proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No. 202
of 1973-74.
49. Having considered the submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the materials available
on record, it appears that the present writ application has been
filed by the Shebait of Sri Ramchandra Bhagwanji and seven
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
27/33
other deities, challenging Gazette Notification No. 3060 dated
26.10.2004 issued by the Collector, Purnea, in Land Ceiling
Case No. 1169 of 1973-74, corresponding to case No. 25 of
1982-83, insofar as the same relates to the lands belonging to
the aforesaid eight deities.
50. The submission of the petitioners is confined to the
inclusion of lands which had already been considered in the
earlier ceiling proceedings and in respect of which the
entitlement of the eight deities to retain 240 acres of land had
attained finality. The issue concerning the entitlement of the
eight deities to separate units was decided by this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 1889 of 1981 by judgment dated 30.06.1986.
Pursuant thereto, by order dated 28.04.1990 passed in Land
Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74, the eight deities were
permitted to retain 240 acres of land, being 30 acres for each
deity and only 21.85 acres of land was declared surplus.
51. Subsequently, the order dated 27.11.1995 passed in
Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74, whereby the
entitlement of the eight deities was reduced to a single unit and
210.77 acres of land was declared surplus, was challenged
before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7323 of 1996. The said writ
application, along with C.W.J.C. No. 3436 of 1994, was
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
28/33
disposed of by a common judgment dated 04.09.2013 passed by
the Division Bench of this Court. The order dated 27.11.1995
was quashed and the respondents were expressly denied liberty
to reopen the concluded proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No.
202 of 1973-74.
52. In the aforesaid background, the principal question
for consideration is whether the lands belonging to the eight
deities, already dealt with in the concluded ceiling proceedings
at Katihar, could again be included in the impugned Gazette
Notification No. 3060 dated 26.10.2004 issued by the Collector,
Purnea in Land Ceiling Case No. 1169 of 1973-74/25 of 1982-
83.
53. After careful examination of the aforesaid notification
and a comparative analysis of the particulars of the lands
referred to therein vis-a-vis those forming part of the earlier
ceiling proceedings, it appears that certain lands belonging to
the eight deities, which had already been considered for the
purpose of determining their entitlement to retain 240 acres,
have also been included in the impugned notification. The
particulars of the lands in question, as furnished on behalf of
the petitioners, are set out hereinbelow:
(i) Mauza Rampur (Thana No. 75): Khata No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
29/33
123, comprising Khesra Nos. 70, 71, 85P, 131,
141, 142, 163, 347, 380, 381 382, 561, 563, 578,
582, 601, 602, 619, 620 and 638.
(ii) Mauza Belwa (Thana No. 65): Khata Nos. 342,
189 and 268, comprising Khesra Nos. 324, 343
356, 357, 360, 361, 365, 374, 808, 885, 886, 359,
944, 948, 949, 990, 1006, 1051, 1052, 1059, 1270,
1271, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276 and 1277.
(iii) Mauza Ramnagar-Vanshi: Khata No. 56,
comprising Khesra Nos. 652, 653, 654, 655 and
711.
54. The aforesaid particulars indicate that the lands
in- question, require examination in the light of the ceiling
proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74
(Katihar), and the impugned proceedings in Land Ceiling Case
No. 1169 of 1973-74, corresponding to Case No. 25 of 1982-83
(Purnea).
55. The mere difference in the names of the persons
against whom the Purnea and Katihar ceiling proceedings were
initiated, the former against Jai Narayan Choudhary and the
latter in respect of the lands of late Bishwanath Choudhary and
the eight deities, does not, by itself, conclusively demonstrate
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
30/33
that the lands involved in the respective proceedings are
separate and distinct. Such a determination would necessarily
require a comparative examination of the relevant land
particulars and the records of the respective ceiling
proceedings. The issue has to be decided with reference to the
identity of the lands, their Khata and Khesra particulars and the
records of the relevant ceiling cases. The State has itself
submitted that the question of overlap requires examination
with reference to the schedules, plot particulars and records of
the respective proceedings.
56. It is also pertinent to note that the Division Bench of
this Court in its judgment dated 04.09.2013 passed in C.W.J.C.
No. 7323 of 1996, had already quashed the subsequent order
dated 27.11.1995 and held that the concluded proceedings in
Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74 could not be reopened.
The inclusion of lands already covered by the concluded
proceedings in the impugned notification, without due
consideration of the earlier adjudication and the consequential
orders, therefore, cannot be sustained to the extent that such
inclusion relates to the lands of the eight deities covered by the
concluded proceedings.
57. Having regard to the rival submissions and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
31/33
materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that the
claim of the petitioners requires relief to the limited extent of
the lands identified above. At the same time, since the State has
disputed the identity of the lands forming part of the separate
ceiling proceedings, a comparative verification of the relevant
records is necessary to ensure that the lands covered by the
concluded proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-
74 are not again included in the impugned notification. Such
verification shall be undertaken with reference to the original
records, the relevant schedules and the Gazette notifications.
The exercise shall not result in reopening or reconsideration of
the concluded adjudication in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of
1973-74.
58. Consequently, Gazette Notification No. 3060 dated
26.10.2004, issued by the Collector, Purnea, in Land Ceiling
Case No. 1169 of 1973-74 corresponding to Land Ceiling Case
No. 25 of 1982-83 (Annexure-10) is hereby quashed to the
extent that it includes the lands belonging to the eight deities
which are established, upon comparative verification of the
relevant gazette notification, as stated above, to have already
formed part of the concluded proceedings in Land Ceiling Case
No. 202 of 1973-74 (Katihar). The verification shall be
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
32/33
confined to the lands identified in paragraph no. 36 above with
regard to notifications of the two ceiling proceedings i.e. Land
Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74 wherein 240 acres of lands
have been allotted to eight deities and Land Ceiling Case No.
1169 of 1973-74/25 of 1982-83.
59. The Additional Collector, Katihar, is directed to
undertake a comparative verification of the relevant gazette
notification and ceiling records, including the Khata and Khesra
particulars of the lands covered by the earlier proceedings in
Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74, Katihar, and the
impugned Gazette Notification No. 3060 dated 26.10.2004.
Upon such verification, the Additional Collector shall exclude
from the impugned notification those lands of the eight deities
which are found to have already been covered by the concluded
proceedings in Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74 and issue
a fresh notification to that extent in Land Ceiling Case No.
1169 of 1973-74, corresponding to Case No. 25 of 1982-83.
The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of
three months from the date of receipt or production of a copy of
this judgment and modify the Gazette Notification No. 3060
dated 26-10-2004 to the extent by excluding the lands declared
to be allotted to eight deities, measuring 240 acres, being part
Patna High Court CWJC No.16019 of 2004(1) dt.03-11-2026
33/33
of Land Ceiling Case No. 202 of 1973-74, which has been
included and notified in Gazette Notification No. 3060 dated
26-10-2004 relating to Land Ceiling Case No. 1169/1973-74/25
of 1982-83.
60. Accordingly, the writ application is partly allowed in
the aforesaid terms.
61. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
62. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the
Additional Collector, Katihar (respondent no.4) for information
and necessary compliance within the period stipulated above.
63. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 01-09-2026
Uploading Date 06-11-2026
Transmission Date N/A