KAMAL KRISHAN RASTOGI & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 03-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 14 
KAMAL KRISHAN R,;STOGI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.5771-5772 of 2002) 
SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and 
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - s. 45-B - Land ceiling 
c proceedings- Re-opened by Collector- Thereafter transferred 
to Additional Collector for disposal - Land-holder, 'S', prayed 
for time to file objections - But did not file any objection and 
died a few months later.:_ No steps taken for substitution of his 
heirs in the proceeding - Additional Collector sent notice in 
0 name of 'S' (who was by then dead) fixing hearing of the case 
- No one appeared in response - Additional Collector passed 
orders holding that the land holder was entitled to 78 acres of 
class I land and declaring 130. 56 acres of class I land as 
surplus -
Heirs of 'S' challenged the order of Additional 
E Collector in appeal and revision but were unsuccessful - They 
filed writ petition contending that the Collector's order 
reopening the proceeding was incurably bad and illegal 
because it was passed without notice to the land-holder and 
consequently, all subsequent orders passed by revenue 
authorities were equally illegal and unsustainable - High Court 
F rejected the submission, holding that having participated in 
proceedings before the Additional Collector and then having 
taken the matter in appeal and revision, it was no longer open 
to the heirs of 'S' to question the validity of the Collector's 
order reopening the proceeding - On appeal, held: It would 
G be hardly fair and just to hold that the land-holder took any 
part in the proceeding after it was reopened by the Collector's 
order -
Order of Additional Collector was made against a 
dead person and for that reason alone it was unsustainable - · 
H 
Only after the order of Additional Collector, the heirs of 'S' 
1l 
1 
KAMAL KRISHAN RASTOGI & ORS. v. STATE 
15 
'r 
OF BIHAR & ANR. 
came into picture, when they tried to challenge the same - It A 
is, therefore, quite wrong to say that it was not open to the land 
holders to question the validity of the reopening order since 
they had participated in the proceeding after its reopening -
Order passed by High Court as well as orders of revenue 
~ 
authorities unsustainable in law and set aside. 
B 
The Collector, in exercise of his powers under s.45-
B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and 
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, passed order for 
re-opening of land ceiling proceeding. The order was 
passed without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to c 
the landholder. The proceedings were thereafter 
transferred to the Additional Collector for disposal. On a 
notice issued to him, the land-holder, 'S', appeared before 
· the Additional Collector and filed a petition praying for 
time to file objections. Thereafter, he neither filed any D 
'I' 
objection nor ever appeared before the Court and few 
months later died. After death of the land-holder, no steps 
were taken for substitution of his heirs in the proceeding 
nor any notice was sent to the heirs of the deceased 'S'. 
The Additional Collector sent a registered notice in the E 
' 
name of 'S' (who was by then dead) fixing the hearing of 
the case. No one appeared in response to the notice and 
apparently no hearing was done on that date. Then on 
receipt of the Circle Officer's report, the Additional 
" 
Collector sent another registered notice fixing the hearing 
of the case. This notice too was addressed to 'S'. Finally, 
F 
..... 
on a subsequent date, the Additional Collector passed 
t 
orders holding that the land holder was entitled to 78 
acres of class I land and 130.56 acres of class I land was 
declared as surplus. It was also held that no gift was G 
executed within the period permitted under the Act and 
that in the earlier proceedings 43.41 acres of land was 
}, 
wrongly excluded on the plea of having been given in gift 
by the land-holder to his daughters. The sons of 'S' took 
the order of the Additional Collector in appeal and revision 
H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A and being unsuccessful before the revenue authorities 
filed writ petition before the High Court. Before the High 
Court, it was inter alia contended that the Collector's order 
reopening the proceeding was incurably bad and illegal 
because it was passed without any notice to the land-
s holder and consequently, 

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