N.L.Ganguly, J. - (1.) IT is said that the petitioners had purchased by a registered sale -deed dated 30th July, 1959, 6 decimals of land out of plot No. 238 village Laladhar Chhapra. It appears that the said sale deed is before the proceedings under the Ceiling Act taken in the village. The large area of the original tenure holder from whom the petitioners got the sale -deed have been involved in the ceiling operation and sufficient land has been declared as surplus still the original tenure holder is possessed of large area of land as his holding. It is said that 6 decimals of land purchased out of plot No. 238 by the petitioners has also been allotted to the petitioners during the consolidation proceedings in the village in his chak. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the small area of the land purchased by the petitioners from their vendor, the original tenure holder has been taken away as surplus of the original vendor tenure holder of the land which is causing hardship and prejudiced the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners have not brought these facts to the notice of the Prescribed Authority while declaring the surplus holding of the tenure holder. The petitioners had simply stated before the competent authority that his sale deed is prior to 1971 and is to be excluded from the ceiling area of his vendor. A perusal of the judgment do not show that the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority considered this aspect of the matter.
(2.) IN view of the decision reported in Ravindra Singh v. Phool Singh and another : 1995 J.I.R. Part I p. 22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe: Authorities ought to have examined the offer of surrender made by the respondent, Phool Singh. In accordance therewith. He must be asked to surrender land which are not the subject matter of transfer. Only where the Prescribed Authority is satisfied that surrender of surplus land is not possible without including the transferred land, will he accept the surrender of transferred land, to the extent necessary - -with the necessary consequences flowing therefrom. The High Court and Authorities under the Act, however, have not followed this course....... After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the direction that the petitioners shall move an application within three weeks from today with a certified copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority to exclude his plot from the surplus area of the original tenure holder vendor of the petitioner. The surplus area of the petitioners vendor may be taken out of the plots which are without any encumbrances still in his name. The petitioners may not be put to unnecessary hardship on account of the actions of the tenure holder or the State. The Prescribed Authority shall consider these aspects, according to law, in view of the observations made in the judgment, quoted supra. Till the matter is disposed of by the Prescribed Authority, in the light of the observations made in this judgment, the petitioners' possession shall not be disturbed. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel within three days on payment of usual charges.;