Bihar HC Revives Family’s 39.62-Acre Surplus Challenge For Merits Hearing, Says Section 45D Did Not Abate Its Tribunal Case

Ceiling proceedings concerning land held by the petitioners’ predecessors resulted in a declaration of surplus land.

The Collector modified the Additional Collector’s order, and the Board of Revenue dismissed the landholders’ revision on 15 October 1993.

The landholders’ writ petition was transferred to the Bihar Land Tribunal (BLT), where it was dismissed as abated on 3 October 2016 following the repeal of Section 45B and insertion of Section 45D of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (“Ceiling Act”).

The Supreme Court set aside earlier High Court orders and remitted the matter for decision on the merits, observing that dismissal on delay and laches was not justified in the circumstances.

The present writ challenged the BLT’s abatement order.

Under Section 30 of the Ceiling Act, an appeal lies against a final order under Section 11(1), and Section 32 provides for revision against the appellate court’s order; the Court noted that these provisions had not been repealed.

Section 9 of the Bihar Land Tribunal Act, 2009 empowers the BLT to entertain applications concerning final orders under the Ceiling Act.

Applying Section 45D of the Ceiling Act, the Court held that the pending appeal, revision, and BLT proceedings in this case—being continuations of the original ceiling proceedings rather than proceedings arising from a reopening under the repealed Section 45B—were not abated.

The Court found that the challenged proceedings originated in the original ceiling case and continued through the appeal, revision, and transfer to the BLT; they did not arise from a reopening under Section 45B.

Because Sections 30 and 32 remained in force and Section 9 of the 2009 Act empowered the BLT to hear the transferred matter, the Court concluded that Section 45D did not abate these proceedings.

Since the BLT had dismissed the case on a technical ground without deciding its merits, that order could not stand.

The BLT was directed to dispose of the case preferably within nine months of receiving or being furnished a copy of the judgment.