MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR CO PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three writ applications have been heard together as their facts are similar and the points involved In them are identical. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) After briefly stating the facts of the three cases, I shall indicate the points involved in all of them at one place. C.W.J.C. No. 1871 of 1970.

(3.) The petitioner is a company in corporated under the Indian Companies Act and owns a sugar factory at Majhaulia in the district of Champaran. It also owns sugar-cane farms in the district of Champaran, the area of which is about 1700 acres. The petitioner filed a return on the 30th of May, 1970, a copy of which is annexure "1" to the writ application, in accordance with Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act 12 of 1962) hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The return was filed stating that it was "without prejudice", as, according to the petitioner's case, its farms are not subject to the provisions of the Act; they are exempt from the law of ceiling imposed by the Act In the return, the total area of the farms was given as 1689.60 acres and exemption was claimed under the various sub-clauses of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act, as also under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 29. The case of the petitioner is that, without following the procedure prescribed in the Act and in the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), respondent No. 3, the Officer exercising the powers of Collector under the Act at Bettiah, prepared a draft statement, dated the 30th of September. 1970, a copy of which is annexure "3" to the writ application. In this case, the petitioner Company had written letters, dated the 1st of June, 1970, to the Anchal Adhikaris concerned, a copy of which is annexure "2" to the writ application, that it had filed the return in Form LC-2 under the Act, which was to be sent to them for verification, and requested them to fix a date for the verification. The petitioner's case is that, without paying any heed and without there being any report from the authorities concerned, respondent No. 3 prepared the draft statement arbitrarily and illegally. C.W.I.C. No. 1872 of 1970:--