Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Vikas Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Banerjee, JC to GA.
(2.) THE petitioners pray for quashing the final Notification under Section 15(1) as contained at Annexure 8 issued under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as the 'Land Ceiling Act'). By reason of the aforementioned Notification which, according to the petitioners was published between 15.8.1995 to 31.08.1995 by Annexure 8, 102.89 -1/2 Acres of land belonging to the different land -holders were sought to be acquired in various villages but the petitioners are concerned with only those lands situated in villages Saguna and Saguni with Paton Police Station: According to the petitioners, the aforesaid final Notification, as contained at Annexure 8 was made without there being a draft publication under the provisions of Section 11(1) of the said Celling Act and without serving a copy thereof upon the petitioners and therefore, according to the petitioners, the aforesaid final publication is contrary to law as also in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 17.06.1995 passed in the Land Ceiling No. 10/73 - 74 (Annexure 5) whereby and whereunder the objection filed by the petitioners was rejected. According to the petitioners, this order of rejection amounts to complete non -application of mind in as much as the statutory option that the petitioners had exercised under the provisions of Section 9 was not even considered.
(3.) THE short facts which are necessary to be taken note of in the instant case is that a Land Ceiling Case bearing No. 10 of 1973 - 74 was initiated against the petitioner No. 2 alone namely Madan Kumar Pandey but the same was dropped on 19.12.1973 by the Deputy Collector Incharge, Land Reforms, Palamau at Daltonganj. By Annexure 2 after almost 19 years thereafter, i.e. some time in the year 1992 the same was again reopened and a draft statement under Section 10(2) of the Ceiling Act was prepared. The petitioner No. 2 filed his objection under Section 10(3) of the Act on 10.7.1992 and also filed his option as per the provisions of Section 9 of the said Land Ceiling Act indicating that he was willing to retain those lands mentioned in the said option situated in villages Saguna and Saguni. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the aforementioned option has been made in relation to three units only in as much as by order dated 27.09.1991 as contained in Annexure 6 (relevant page 44 of the Writ Petition) the respondents themselves had allowed retention of three units and it was in that background that the petitioner No. 2 filed his objection along with the option for three units of villages Saguna and Saguni.;