LexASHOK KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 8 S.C.R. 162 A ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. II. STATE OF BIHAR (Civil Appeal No. 7770 Of 2001) 8 MAY 9, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA JJ.] Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Ac- c quisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961: s. 45 - Re-opening of proceedings under- After 14 years - Challenge to - Held: On facts, not tenable - Case herein was re-opened after issuance of show cause notice and after hearing of objection of the land holders - In absence of any D time limit, such action taken in order to ascertain the actual I eligible land holding~, could not be faulted with - Show cause notice was issued to the land holder and they were heard on the point of draft publication prior to passing of the order - Order regarding draft publication was passed after taking into E consideration all the relevant facts. ss. 2(g), 5(iii), 9(2) - Land mortgaged in 1966 - And in 1972 transferred by the land-holders to ihe same mortgagees - Land Ceiling proceedings initiated under the Act - Whether • ~ F the mortgaged lands, possession of which was handed over to the mortgagees by the mortgagor-land holders, could be included within lands of the land holders - Held: Mortgaged land is essentially considered as land of the land holder - Mortgage of the land in 1966 could not be considered as a transfer prior to the notified date i.e. 9-9-1970 - Lands were G transferred by registered sale deed after 9-9-1970 and the title passed only thereafter - High Court was right in concluding that transfers made in 1972 having been made after 9-9-1970, with or without permission, be treated as lands selected by the land holders for purpose of retention of their lands within their H 162 ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY & ORS. v. 163 STATE OF BIHAR 'J ceiling units in terms of s. 9(2). A Appellants, land-holders, mortgaged the lands in question in 1966 and in 1972 transferred the said lands to the same mortgagees. In 1975, Land Ceiling proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the Bihar Land Re- 8 forms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus ... Land) Act, 1961. After coming into force of the Act, no per- son could hold land beyond the ceiling limit after the ap- pointed d~y i.e. 9-9-1970. Appellants, land-holders claimed exemption of the land sold to the mortgagees. An enquiry was contemplated under s.5(iii) of the Act. The transfers c made to the mortgagees were found to be genuine and valid. The proceedings were thereafter dropped. No ap- peal, revision or review was filed against the same. 14 years later, the Revenue Authority re-opened the D proceedings in exercise of power under s.45-8. It did not accept th& transfers made in favour of the mortgagees, on the ground that the sale deeds were executed after 9- 9-1970, and held that the transferred lands have to be in- eluded within the ceiling area to be retained by the Appel- E lants land-holders. The order of the Revenue Authority was upheld by the High Court. In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf " of the Appellants that after inordinate delay of 14 years, the Collector was not justified in re-opening a concluded F proceeding in exercise of power under s.45-B of the Act and that even if the transfers made by the land holders in the year 1972 in favour of the mortgagees are to be ig- nored on the ground that the same was without obtain- ing prior approval of the Collector in writing as required G " under s.5(ii) of the Act, still the mortgaged lands, the pos- session of which has been handed over to the mortgag- ees by the mortgagor-land holders, cannot be included within the lands of the land holders in view of the defini- tion of "land holder" as defined in s.2(g) of the Act. H 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Insofar as the first contention regarding re- opening of the case under s.45-B of the Act is concerned, it is seen that the District Collector, finding fault with the disposal of the case, re-opened the case after issuance B of show cause notice and after hearing the objection of the land holders. A reading of the above provisions, mainly • s.45-B, makes it clear that after affording an opportunity to the land holder, the Collector of the District (since omit- ted by Act No.8/97) or the State Government call for and C examine any proceeding and direct the case to be re- opened and disp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.