PITAMBAR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 12 S.C.R. 958 · Decided: 08-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201 O] 12 S.C.R. 958 
PITAMBAR SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8865 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 8, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
Land Ceiling: 
C 
8ihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and 
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - ss.2(ee}, 11(1) and 
32 8 - 8ihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and 
Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982 -
Class-I/ land - Mitakshara joint family comprising of appellant 
D no.1, his wife and sons having a total family holding of 33.95 
acres - Draft statement made and published showing that 
appellant No. 1 was entitled to retain only 18 acres of land and 
thus, the family was holding 15. 95 acres of land as surplus 
land - Appellate Authority recorded that one son of appellant 
E no.1, namely, appellant No.2 was major, thus, he was entitled 
to be treated as a separate family from that of appellant no. 1 
- Order not challenged by the State and attained finality -
Amendment Act came into force - Section 328 relied upon 
by State Government - Initiation of fresh proceedings -
F Ceiling re-determined - Challenge to - Rejected by High 
Court- Held: In the facts and circumstances, s.328 could not 
have been relied upon by the State Government, and the High 
Court erred in legalizing the subsequent reopening of the 
proceedings, which had come to a dead end - Since the order 
passed by the appellate authority attained finality, there was 
G no question of any further proceedings - Even on the merits, 
the High Court committed a patent error in treating the family 
as one family and proceeding to limit the entitlement of the 
family holding to 18 acres - The rights of appellant Nos. 1 and 
H 
958 
PITAMBAR SINGH AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 
959 
AND ORS. 
2 as coparceners was intact - Further, since they were major A 
on the relevant date, they could not have been held as 
member of one family and were entitled to be treated as 
independent families with the result that there would be two 
families and the total land being only 33. 95 acres, there could 
be no surplus, as has been wrongly held by the courts below, 
B 
particularly, after the reopening of the proceedings under 
s.328 of the Amendment Act. 
Appellant no.1 is the son of 'B', the original land 
holder. They were members of a Mitakshara joint family c 
and were having a total family holding of 33.95 acres of 
class-II land. The ceiling fixed by the Bihar Land Reforms 
(Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) 
Act, 1961 is 18 acres in respect of such land. After the 
death of 'B', proceedings were started by a Ceiling Case 
D 
against appellant No. 1. A draft statement was made and 
published showing that appellant No. 1 was entitled to 
retain only 18 acres of land and thus, the family was 
holding 15.95 acres of land as surplus land. 
On the service of the draft statement, appellant No. 
1 filed objections under Section 10(3) of the Act stating 
that his son, appellant no.2 was major on 9.9.1970, the 
relevant date under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of 
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, 
and as such, he also was entitled to his own share and 
he could not be held as a member of family of appellant 
no.1. The objection was rejected. The appellate authority 
by its order dated 15-2-1977 recorded a finding that 
appellant No. 2 was major on 9.9.1970, and accordingly, 
E 
F 
he was entitled to be treated as a separate family from 
G 
that of appellant No.1, and that there was no surplus land 
in between the two families, namely, appellant no.1 and 
his son appellant no.2. This order was not challenged by 
the State by way of a revision and the said order attained 
the finality. 
H 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
Subsequently, the 8ihar Land Reforms (Fixation of 
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) 
(Amendment) Act, 1982, came into force, pursuant to 
which a fresh draft statement was issued and the ceiling 
was re-determined, holding the family of the appellants 
B (appellant no.1 and appellant no.2) to be one family. This 
order was confirmed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the 
appellants moved the High Court by way of a writ petition. 
The Single Judge of the High Court noted that there was 
a final order holding that the appellants were entitled to 
c be counted as two families, yet held that the said old 
notification/publication would be deemed to be operative 
on the date of coming into

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