- (1.) The present interlocutory application has been preferred by Smt. Uma Kumari Devi and Smt. Parvati Kumari Devi, daughters of Late Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari Devi, aged about 90 years, as stated by counsel for these two applicants. These two applicants are the legal heirs of Late Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari Devi, who expired on 29th June, 1984. Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari Devi was the holder of the land measuring 61.31 acres of Khata No. 2, village Baridih, Thana No. 237 of Ratu, District- Ranchi. Some portion of the said land was in excess of permissible ceiling limit under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus land) Act, 1961 and, therefore, after initiating Land Ceiling Case No. 349/73-74, vide notification dated 1st April, 1984, 30.30 acres out of 61.23 acres was acquired by the Government, being excess, against which W.P (C) No. 6921 of 2002 was preferred by these two applicants, i.e. Smt. Uma Kumari Devi & Smt. Parvati Kumari Devi, challenging the said Notification dated 1st April, 1984. It has been submitted by counsel for the applicants that in the order dated 17th August, 2007, in W.P. (C) No. 6921 of 2002, name of Smt. Parvati Kumari Devi was wrongly written as 'Smt. Parvash Kumari Devi', which appears to be a clerical error. In this writ petition contention was raised by these two applicants that at the time excess land was acquired by the Government, it should have been taken into consideration that their mother namely Late Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari Devi had two daughters (petitioners) as family and therefore, the State ought to have given three units instead of one unit. These two units for these two daughters were denied and had there been three units given, perhaps, no excess vacant land could have been acquired by the Government. There was also another argument canvassed in W.P. (C) No. 6921 of 2002 that before issuing the notification dated 1.4.1984, no notice, or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners (proposed interveners in the present case) and therefore, the impugned notification dated 1st April, 1984 was stayed and the matter was remanded to the Additional Collector (Land Ceiling), Ranchi for taking fresh decision. Thereafter, the decision was taken by the Additional Collector (Land Ceiling), Ranchi,. against which an appeal was preferred under Section 30 of the Act, 1961, being Ceiling Appeal No. 11 of 2009-10. Thus, it appears that there are vital interest of these two intervenors in the outcome of this public interest litigation and therefore, they are praying to be joined as party respondents. Having heard both sides and looking to the facts of the case, it appears that vital interest of the applicants is involved in the instant writ petition, they being the daughters of the original landholder, namely, Late Smt. Lalin Madan Kumari Devi. They have also initially preferred writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 6921 of 2002 and thereafter, the matter was remanded to the Additional Collector (Land Ceiling), Ranchi, who, having heard these two applicants, decided the case against these two applicants, against which appeal was preferred before the Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi.
(2.) In view of the aforesaid facts, this interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 4307 of 2013; is, hereby, allowed and disposed of. The applicants/proposed. intervenors are permitted to be arrayed as party respondent Nos. 8 and 9 respectively to this writ petition. W.P. (P.I.L.) No. 2880 of 2013:
(3.) This public interest litigation has been preferred mainly for the reason that there is a notification issued by the Government dated 1st April, 1984, declaring approximately 30 acres of land situated at Khata No. 2, village Baridih, Thana No. 237 of Ratu, District- Ranchi and this land is now transferred in favour of some land mafia, as submitted by the counsel for the petitioner. Once the land is declared surplus it cannot be settled to any person by the Government. This is the main argument canvassed by the petitioner, over and above several other arguments, including the claim that the records of the L.C. Case No. 349/73-74 was not traced out inspite of the previous order to that effect was passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6921 of 2002 and further to take action against the concerned officials/staff. It is further submitted that though First Information Report was instituted in this matter, but, despite this, no action has been taken by the State on the basis of the First Information Report and the landed property of the Government is going to be misappropriated by the land mafias.;