Vishal Kumar Singh and Ors vs The State Of Bihar and Ors
- Court
- Patna High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20355 of 2016
CNR No. BRHC010881692016
======================================================
1. Vishal Kumar Singh
2. Shailesh Kumar Singh,
Both sons of Late Mrityunjay Singh, Resident of Village Jehanabad, P.S.
Kudra, District- Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua.
4. The Additional Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua.
5. Circle Officer, Kudra, Dist- Kaimur at Bhabua.
6. Ramayan Paswan Son of late Nauer Paswan, Resident of Village - Chilbili,
P.S. - Kudra, District- Kaimur (Bhabua).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, AC to SC 25
For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Bishwajeet Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 06-11-2026
Heard Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, learned senior
counsel assisted by Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, learned AC to SC-25 for
the State and Mr. Bishwajeet Pandey, learned counsel for the
private respondent no. 6.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
2/15
2. This writ application has been heard on remand by the
Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 17.02.2025 passed in Civil
Appeal No. 4419 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 12649 of
2022 whereby the order of learned Single Judge dated 10.05.2019
passed in CWJC No. 20355 of 2016 and judgment of Division
Bench of this Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 615 of
2019 on 04.07.2022 have been set aside by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in the
present case, the issue to declare the land belonging to the
predecessor-in-interest of the appellant as surplus is in question.
In the cases where the land has been declared surplus and prior
to dismissing the pending proceedings before the Tribunal the
question of possession is relevant. In the case at hand, the land
was declared as surplus and proceedings were pending before
Tribunal at the time of declaring such proceedings as abated.
Therefore, in such a situation dismissing the writ petition on the
ground of delay and laches would not be justified . In such view of
the matter, the orders of the High Court have been set aside and
the matter has been remitted to be decided on merit.
3. This writ application has been filed for quashing the
resolution dated 15.10.1993 passed by the Additional Member,
Board of Revenue, Government of Bihar in Case No. 226 of 1989
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
3/15
whereby the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Govt.
of Bihar, affirmed the order passed by the Collector, Rohtas in
Ceiling Case No. 05 of 1989 affirming the order of the Additional
Collector (Ceiling) Kaimur in Ceiling Case No. 43 of 1973-74 /
158 of 1975 / 76.
4. In order to gauge the matter in its correct perspective,
it is necessary to briefly restate what the case of the petitioners is
in the writ application.
5. The case of the petitioners is that Land Ceiling Case
No. 43 of 1973-74 was initiated against the land holder, namely,
Late Baijnath Singh and Late Shiv Shankar Singh, both sons of
Late Kalki Singh under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as "the Ceiling Act"). According to the
verification report of the Circle Officer, the descendants of Late
Kalki Singh possessed 63.02 acres of land on 09.09.1970 out of
which of the land except 4 acres of land has no facility for
irrigation. As per the genealogical table mentioned in the
verification report of the Circle Officer, Late Baijnath Singh had
two sons, namely Rajendra Prasad Singh and Chandra Bhan Singh
and one daughter, namely Godawari Devi. Late Shiv Shankar
Singh had also two sons, namely, Mritunjay Singh and Karunesh
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
4/15
Singh and one daughter, namely, Kumari Madhu Singh.
Accordingly, a draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling
Act was published in the official gazette of the district. The land
holder filed their objections under Section 10(3) of the Ceiling
Act. As per the verification report of the Circle Officer, Shiv
Shankar Singh wrongly shown as dead. The age of Rajendra Singh
and Chandra Bhan Singh, both sons of Baijnath Singh, are shown
to be 28 years and 23 years on the appointed day i.e. on
09.09.1970. It is further case of the petitioners that in the said
report, Mritunjay Singh, father of the petitioners and Karunesh
Singh, son of Late Shiv Shankar Singh are shown to be aged about
24 years and 20 years respectively on the appointed day. The
learned Additional Collector (Ceiling) again called for a
verification report from Circle Officer, Kudra, which was
submitted vide Letter No. 738 dated 14.05.1977. In the said report,
the facts stated in the earlier reports were reiterated. It is further
pleaded that the land holders filed a matriculation certificate of
Rajendra Singh and a certificate issued by the Head Master of
Madhya Vidhyalay, Jehanabad and also appointment letter of
Chandra Bhan Singh, but even then, the Additional Collector
(Ceiling) neither accepted the verification report nor the certificate
submitted by the land holders and held that Rajendra Singh,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
5/15
Chandra Bhan Singh, Mritunjay Singh and Karunesh Singh were
minors on the appointed day and only two units of land; one for
Baijnath Singh and another for Most. Ram Pyari Kunwar were
allowed and all the lands were classified as Class-II land and thus
27.02 acres land was found to be surplus by the Additional
Collector (Ceiling), Kaimur on 11.08.1988 in the said Ceiling Case
No. 43 of 1973-74 / 158 of 1975-76. An appeal was preferred
before the District Collector, Rohtas which gave rise to the Ceiling
Appeal No. 5 of 1989. The Collector modified the order of the
Additional Collector (Ceiling) dated 11.08.1988 and disposed of
the appeal by its order dated 09.05.1989 allowing one unit with
three additional units to the members of the family of land holders.
The order dated 09.05.1989 came to be challenged by way of
revision under Section 32 of Ceiling Act giving rise to Ceiling
Revision Case No. 226 of 1989 which came to be dismissed by
order dated 15.10.1993.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the
Additional Member, Board of Revenue dated 15.10.1993, a writ
application was filed by the land holders before this Court which
gave rise to C.W.J.C. No. 7407 of 2006. The said writ petition was
disposed of by order of this Court dated 05.12.2013 by transferring
the same to the Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna after noticing the fact
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
6/15
that the dispute was amenable to the jurisdiction of Bihar Land
Tribunal constituted under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Tribunal
Act, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2009"). Applying
the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 2009 read with Rule 5(6)
of the Bihar Land Tribunal Rules, 2010, the records of the writ
proceedings were transferred to the Tribunal for adjudication
which was numbered as B.L.T. Case No. 07 of 2014 which was
disposed of as abated by the order dated 03.10.2016 passed by the
learned Chairman of the Bihar Land Tribunal in view of repealing
Section 45B by inserting Section 45D of the Ceiling Act which is
under challenged in the present writ application.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
original petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No. 7407 of 2006 before this
Court against the order passed in Ceiling Revision Case No. 226 of
1989 by the learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue against
the allotment of the units to the land holders. The impugned
orders arise out of Land Ceiling Case No. 43/1973-74 / 158/1975-
76 passed by the Additional Collector (Ceiling), Kaimur as well as
order dated 09.05.1989 passed by the Collector, Rohtas in Ceiling
Appeal Case No. 5 of 1989 and order passed by the Additional
Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 226 of 1989
which was ultimately transferred by a Bench of this Court to Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
7/15
Land Tribunal for adjudication. It is further submitted that all the
aforesaid orders have been passed in continuation of original
proceedings. However, the order passed by the Additional
Collector and the Collector were not passed under Section 45B of
the Ceiling Act and no any proceedings has ever been initiated
against the land holders under Section 45B of the Ceiling Act. The
learned Tribunal wrongly assumed that the present proceedings is
initiated under Section 45B of the Ceiling Act. Against the order of
Additional Collector passed on 11.08.1988 in Ceiling Case No.
43/1973-74 / 158/1975-76, the land holders filed Ceiling Appeal
No. 5 of 1989 before the Collector. The Collector modified the
order of Additional Collector to the detrimental of the petitioners
to the extent of allowing only one unit of land to the family of the
land holders and declared 39.62 acres of Class-II land as surplus.
Against the aforesaid order of the Collector, the land holders filed
Revision Case No. 226 of 1989, which, too, was dismissed vide
Resolution dated 15.10.1993 by the Additional Member, Board of
Revenue. Against the aforesaid revisional order, the original
petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 7407 of 2006. It is apparent from the
proceedings which was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 7407 of 2006
arising out of Ceiling Case No. 43/1973-74 / 158/1975-76 that a
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
8/15
direction was given for transferring the records of the case to the
Bihar Land Tribunal.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
learned Tribunal has not passed order on merit. The order passed
by the Tribunal is purely on technical issue. The learned Tribunal
misdirected itself that Section 45-B of the Ceiling Act has been
repealed and a new Section 45-D has been added after Section 45-
C in the Ceiling Act. As per Section 45-D after repeal of Section
45-B of the Ceiling Act, proceedings pending before the State or
the Bihar Land Tribunal shall be deemed to be abated and the
proceedings reopened earlier under the repealed Section 45-B of
the Ceiling Act and are pending before the Collector shall also
stand abated. Since the matter is still pending, as such, it shall also
stand abated.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
the appeal was in continuation of original proceedings bearing
Land Ceiling Case No. 43/1973-74 / 158/1975-76 against the order
of the Additional Collector, whereby 27.02 acres of Class-II land
held by the landlord was found to be surplus. The Collector in
Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1989 found that wrongly one major units
and three additional units were to be given to the land holders and
thus, the order of the Additional Collector referred to above was
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
9/15
modified by giving one major unit and three additional units
(1/10th of an unit) to the land holders. The said order was
challenged by the land holders before the Additional Member,
Board of Revenue vide Ceiling Revision Case No. 226 of 1989
which was not interfered with and Board of Revenue dismissed the
aforesaid revision petition on 15.10.1993. The aforesaid
proceedings were in continuation of original aforesaid land ceiling
case proceedings and B.L.T. Case is also in continuation of
original Ceiling Proceedings. The order passed by the Additional
Collector, the Collector and the Additional Member, Board of
Revenue, Govt. of Bihar are not arising out of reopening of
Ceiling Case under Section 45-B of the Ceiling Act.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the learned Appellate Court's order is bad in law became in
absence of any appeal by the State Government, the units were
reduced to one from two as given in the original proceedings
merely on the ground of death of Baijnath Singh, who died during
the pendency of the proceedings and was very much alive on
09.09.1970 i.e. the cut of death as fixed in the Act itself and the
same was even affirmed by the revisional court.
11. So far denial of unit to one Chandra Bhan Singh is
concerned, it is submitted that since he was not matriculate,
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
10/15
therefore, only School Leaving Certificate was provided which
shows his date of birth as 17.01.1946, meaning thereby that on the
appointed day, he was major and not only this, his appointment
letter and confirmation letter of Hindalco Industries Limited,
Renukut, was also given, but it was not considered and he, too,
was not allotted any unit. By now, he has retired on 18.01.2004
from the aforesaid employment and a certificate to this effect was
given to him stating therein that he was in continuous service from
03.10.1965 and on his PAN Card also, the date of birth is given as
17.01.1946. The genealogical table shows that at least three more
units should have been given to the land holders and the land in
question should have been declared as Class-IV land and any
improvement of irrigation facility after 09.09.1970 could not be
taken into consideration for the purpose of declaration of nature of
land under the Act. The report of the Circle Officer clearly stated
the aforesaid persons as major and apart from 4 acres of land over
59 acres of land was declared to be Class-IV land but that, too, was
not considered by any of the authorities.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
submitted that it is admitted fact that till date the land, in question,
is in possession of the petitioners and the land holders, which
would be evident from the supplementary counter affidavit filed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
11/15
the respondents before the Bihar Land Tribunal in which they
themselves have admitted this fact that the land is in possession of
the land holders.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State
submits that the Ceiling Case No. 43 of 1973 / 158 of 1975-76 was
initiated against Baijnath Singh and Shiv Shankar Singh, both the
sons of Late Kalika Singh before the Additional Collector, Rohtas,
in which show-cause was called for from the land holders. They
filed their show-cause mentioning therein that their lands under
Ceiling Act are unirrigated save and except 4 acres of irrigated
land. As such, their land comes under category of Class-IV and
also claimed 6 units on the basis of genealogical table. After
hearing the parties, the learned Additional Collector passed an
order on 11.08.1988 by which one unit each to Ram Dulari
Kunwar, wife of Baijnath Singh and Ram Pyari Kunwar, wife of
Shiv Shankar Singh was allowed and the land was declared as
Class-2 land and accordingly, 36 acres land was allowed to be
retained by land holders and rest 27.02 acres of land was declared
as Surplus.
14. Against the aforesaid order dated 11.08.1988, the
land holders preferred a Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1989 before the
Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. After hearing the parties, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
12/15
appellate court passed order on 09.05.1989 whereby the order of
Additional Collector was modified to the extent that only one unit
was granted to the appellant nos. 1 & 3 (minor) in family which
were given as 1/10th of a unit and the petitioners were allowed to
be entitled to retain only 23.04 acres of land of Class-II land and
remaining 39.62 acres of land was declared as surplus.
15. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners moved
before the Board of Revenue in Ceiling Revision Case No. 226 of
1989. The said revision application was dismissed on 15.10.1993
and the order of District Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram was
affirmed. The petitioners preferred C.W.J.C. No. 7407 of 2006
which was ultimately transferred to the Bihar Land Tribunal. After
receiving the above writ application, B.L.T Case No. 7 of 2014
was registered in the registry of Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna.
During the pendency of B.L.T Case, Section 45B of the Ceiling
Act was repealed and a new Section 45D of the Ceiling Act was
added by the State Government through amendment. Since the
matter was kept in suspended animation, the record of the Ceiling
Appeal No. 5 of 1989 was sent to the S.D.M., Mohania for
compliance of the order. The S.D.M., Mohania after hearing the
parties, passed an order on 27.04.2019 / 22.06.2019 declaring
39.62 acres of Class-II land as surplus in the light of order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
13/15
12.04.1989 / 09.05.1989 was passed by the Collector, Rohtas and a
Gazette notification was published under Section 11(1) of the
Ceiling Act on 20.08.2019. Against the order dated 27.04.2019 /
22.06.2019 passed in Ceiling Case No. 5 of 1989, the land holders
(petitioners) filed Ceiling Appeal No. 1 of 2019 before the
Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabhua. After
hearing the parties, the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated
07.11.2019 and S.D.M., Mohania was directed to implement his
own order dated 27.04.2019 / 22.06.2019 as soon as possible.
Accordingly, District Gazette Notification under 11(1) of the
Ceiling Act was published on 20.08.2019, whereby 23.40 acres of
land were allowed to retain the land holders and 39.62 acres of
class-II lands were declared as surplus.
16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions of the parties, it is apparent that the
present proceeding is not related to reopening of the case. It is the
case of continuation of original ceiling proceedings (Ceiling Case
No. 43/1973-74 / 158/1975-76). The statutory remedy for an
appeal against the final order passed under Section 11(1) of the
Ceiling Act is prescribed under Section 30 of the Ceiling Act and
the provision for revision against the order of appellate court is
prescribed under Section 32 of the Ceiling Act. Both the sections
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
14/15
give statutory right to the parties. These sections have not been
repealed by Gazette notification. The pending proceedings under
Section 30 & 32 as well as proceedings pending before the Bihar
Land Tribunal against the order passed under Section 32 of the
Ceiling Act shall not be abated under Section 45D of the Ceiling
Act. The final adjudicatory authority is Bihar Land Tribunal which
has the power to entertain any application against the final order
under the Ceiling Act under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Tribunal
Act, and, thus, the appeal, revision and B.L.T. Case are
continuation of original ceiling proceedings. The question of
abatement of the proceedings under Section 45D of the Ceiling Act
does not arise.
17. Since the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is
not on merit and it is only on technical issue, the impugned order
dated 03.10.2016 passed in B.L.T. Case No. 7 of 2014 is set aside
and the matter is remitted to the Bihar Land Tribunal to dispose of
the case afresh on merit in accordance with law after hearing all
the parties.
18. Further, the Bihar Land Tribunal Patna is directed to
dispose of the Bihar Land Tribunal Case No. 7 of 2014 as early as
possible, preferably, within a period of nine (9) months from the
date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.20355 of 2016 dt.06-11-2026
15/15
19. In the result, this writ application is allowed.
20. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
premchand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 07.07.2026
Uploading Date 07.11.2026
Transmission Date N/A