- (1.) The appellant is 'in possession of 15.36 acres of land of Village Baletha under Siwan Prakhand, State of Bihar. Dhanauti Math of Kabir Panth was notified under Section 10 (1 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Land Ceiling and Acquisition) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). When the proceedings were initiated, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms by his proceedings dated 15/4/1976 held that the appellant is a separate math and that therefore, the lands held by the appellant could not be included in the lands of Dhanauti Math. The Dhanauti Math carried the matter in appeal in respect of other lands and also in further revision to the Board of Revenue. While the revision was pending, by Amendment Act Section 32-A was brought on statute w. e. f. 6/4/1981. The effect of the amendment is that all pending proceedings stood abated. Thereafter power has been given to start suo motu ceiling proceedings afresh. In exercise of the power, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms initiated the proceedings on 12/8/1981. In those proceedings it was held that Dhanauti Math is having several months under its management like Bharatheri Math, Maujahidpur Math etc. including the appellant-Math and that therefore, all the lands are held by Dhanauti Math. Accordingly ceiling on the holding was determined. On appeal, it was confirmed and on further revision, the Board of Revenue by order dated 19-1-1984 confirmed the same. When the appellant filed the CWJC No. 1241 of 1984 in the High court challenging the correctness of the findings recorded by the authorities, by order dated 10/7/1984 the High court dismissed the same in limit. Thus this appeal, by special leave.
(2.) It is firstly contended that reopening of proceedings is bad in law. The main reason on which the contention raised is that the Deputy Collector had declared by his proceedings dated 15/4/1976 that the appellant was a separate entity and that independently held the land. It was allowed to become final. Therefore, there were no proceedings pending in consequence of which the abatement had not taken place by operation of Section 32-A. Unfortunately, we cannot give acceptance to the contention for the reason that reopened proceedings were allowed to become final as they were not challenged by filing any writ petition in the High court. In computationproceedings the authority cannot go into the validity of reopening of proceedings. Therefore, it is not open to the appellant to raise this contention.
(3.) It is next contended that the appellant is only a subsidiary to Dhanauti Math and it is not a family as defined under Section 2 (ee) of the Act and that therefore, the lands held by the appellant cannot be included in the land by Dhanauti Math. This contention too has no force.;