DADAN RAM AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 23-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

--
DADAN RAM AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHARAND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 23, 2007 
_. 
B 
__..._ 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
Land Ceiling: 
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition c 
of Surplus Land) Act, 1961-s.45-B-Land declared as surplus-
-
. 
Distributed to downtrodden-Parcha issued in their name and 
possession also delivered-Reopening of case under s.45-B without 
issuing or giving opportunity of hearing to parcha holders in possession 
of land-Correctness of-Held: Not correct-Proceedings under s.45-
D 
1 
Bare quasi judicial in nature-Before reopening the concluded issue, 
authority had to satisfy minimum requirement of principles of natural 
justice by issuai:ce of notice and hearing-Natural justice-Principles 
o.f 
The ceiling surplus proceedings was initiated against the E 
respondent No.8 and notice to the said effect was issued. The landholder, 
respondent No.8, his wife and minor children were holding land totalling 
19 acres 71 decimals. The concerned authority declared 4.64 acres of 
land as surplus and accordingly notification unders.15 of the Bihar Land F 
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 
1961 was issued. Respondent no.8 unsuccessfully filed appeal before 
Commissioner and revision before Board of Revenue. Writ petition for 
quashing the earlier orders was dismissed by the High Court. 
Subsequently another writ application was filed in High Court by G 
·-J 
respondent No.8 and the same was disposed of with direction to raise 
the matter before the Collector of the District within 2 weeks. 
Respondent No.8 did not file application before the District Collector. 
Therefore, after the expiry of said period, the High Court's order 
507 
H 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200~
1 12 S.C.R. 
A became infructuous. The wife of respondent No.8 filed an application 
before the District Collector for re-opening the case under s.45-B and 
the same was dismissed. Challenging the order of dismissal and previous 
orders passed in appeal and revision filed by respondent No.8, an 
application under s.32 was filed before Board of revenue which was 
B disposed of with direction that Collector should ascertain the allegation. 
After final publication under s.15(1), the aforesaid excess land i.e. 4 
acres 64 decimals was distributed to 8 down-trodden people. Parchas 
were issued in their name and the possession was also delivered to them. 
C 
The District Collector transferred the case to the Court of 
Additional Collector who re-opened the case and held that the land 
holder has no excess land. Before disposal of the application under s.45-
B, no notice was issued nor opportunity was given to the appellants with 
whom the aforesaid lands were in possession. High Court dismissed the 
D writ petition filed by appellants. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. S.45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling 
Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 was inserted by Bihar 
E Act 22of1976. Prior to the aforesaid amendment, there was no such 
power enabling the Collector, Member, Board of Revenue or State 
Government to re-open the case for fresh disposal which had been 
concluded. By the aforesaid s.45-B, power has been vested in the State 
Government or in the Collector of the District (since deleted by Act 8 
F of1997) for re-opening of cases which had been disposed of so that they 
may be heard afresh in accordance with the provisions of the Act Though 
the amended provision contains very wide and extra-ordinary power, 
admittedly no guidelines have been provided as to when such power is 
to be exercised. In fact, no period oflimitation has been fixed, the result 
G whereof may be that a proceeding which had been initiated under the 
provisions of the Act and has been concluded by final orders passed by 
the origina~ appellate and the revisional authority can be re-opened after 
lapse of several years. The amended provision also makes it clear that 
while exercising powers under the said provision, no one can act as an 
H appellate or revisional court. It is an extra-ordinary power which can 
DAD AN RAM v. ST ATE 
509 
be invoked only if earlier order is found to have been passed not in A 
accordance with the Act. [Para 11] [514-B, C, D, E] 
1.2. The proceedings under the amended section are quasi judicial, 
the right to get opportunity of hearing cannot be denied in such 
proceedings. Therefore prior to re-o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.