R.K.MERATHIHA, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have challenged the final Notification dated 2.3.1993 (Annexure -6), issued under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby 27.84 acres of their land have been acquired. Petitioners have further challenged the reopening of the L.C. Case No. 11/1973 -74, under Section 45B of the Act and all the orders passed subsequent thereto.
(2.) THE only contention raised by Shri Devi Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that before re -opening the proceedings under Section 45B of the Act, no notice was given to the petitioners and therefore the order of re -opening and all subsequent orders are illegal. The relevant facts, in short, are as follows: Pursuant to notice under Section 8(1) of the Act the landholder (father of petitioner No. 1) filed return. The Circle Officer inter alia reported that petitioner No. 3 (grandson of the landholder) was minor; the landholder was entitled to two units and that the landholder had land beyond the ceiling limit. Accordingly, a draft statement was prepared. Landholder objected to it claiming third unit on the ground that petitioner No. 3 was major. This time the Circle Officer reported that petitioner No. 3 was major; that the landholder was entitled to three units; that he had no surplus land. Accepting this second report, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) dropped the proceeding on 27.12.1975, holding that the landholder had no surplus land.
(3.) THE Deputy Commissioner thought it fit to reopen the said case. By his Memo No. 1405 dated 23.3.1978. he ordered an enquiry into the matter. On enquiry, it was found that petitioner No. 3, who was minor on the appointed day (9.9.1970) was wrongly allotted one unit; that the landholder had purchased 18.37 acres of land in village Kandri; and that he had also sold certain lands but he did not disclose about the said purchase/sale; that the purchasers also did not file any objection. Thus it was found that the landholder had surplus land. Accordingly, a fresh draft statement was published. Land holder filed his objection to it. After hearing the parties, the said objection was rejected on 9.10.1991, and consequently the notification under Section 15(1) was published. The son of the landholder again filed an objection before the Deputy Commissioner, which was also rejected after hearing the objector. Thereafter, an appeal was filed by the landholder. The appellate court confirmed the findings of fact recorded by the Original Authority. Then revision was filed before the Board of Revenue. The Board rejected the landholder's objection to the reopening and confirmed the said findings.;