RAMESH KUMAR MERATHIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have challenged the notification published in Ranchi Gazette on 1.4.1984 (Annexure 1) in so far as it relates to the land of village Baridih, Ratu Thana No. 237 having a total area of 30.30 acres under the provision of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
(2.) MR . Indrajeet Sinha, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners' mother Late Lalin Madan Kumari executed a registered Will in their favour on 21.1.1978 with regard to the said land. He submitted that a probate case was filed in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi being Probate Case No. 59 of 1986 and the same was decided by judgment dated 17.12.1992 in favour of the petitioners. The objectors filed F.A. No. 57 of 1993(R) in this Court and ultimately the same was decided in petitioners' favour by judgment dated 31st July, 1998. Thereafter, the petitioners filed this writ petition challenging the aforesaid Gazette Notification (Annexure 1) published on 1.4.1984. He further submitted that even otherwise the petitioners are entitled to opportunity of hearing being the heirs of their mother Late Lalin Madan Kumari. He further submitted that the impugned notification has been issued without any notice or without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that a case was initiated against the petitioners' mother being Rural L.C. 349 of 1973 -74 and after thorough enquiry, the lands were acquired having been found surplus and, accordingly, the said notification dated 1.4.1984 was issued and a copy of the same was served on the petitioners on 25.3.1986 but they sat tight and then filed this writ petition only in December, 2002. He further submitted that the said Will was executed after the appointed day i.e. 9.9.1970 and, therefore, the authorities were entitled to enquire whether the same was executed to defeat the purpose of the Act or not, and such enquiry was made in which the landholder was duly noticed and 30.30 acres of land was found excess of ceiling limit and, accordingly, it was acquired and the proposal for settlement of the lands in question has already been sent which is pending approval.
(3.) IT appears from the orders passed in this writ petition that the original record of L.C. Case No. 349 of 1973 - 74 was called for. It appears that despite several order passed by this Court, the original record could not be traced out. Now it is said that a First Information Report has been lodged against the erring officer of the concerned department for misplacing the said record. Thus no useful purpose will be served by keeping this writ petition pending awaiting the said record.;