Jai Mangal Singh @ Gopalji vs The State of Bihar and Others

Shiva Kirti Singh, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

Several questions and issues were sought to be raised including an alleged bias in Respondent No. 2, the Collector of West Champaran, Bettiah. On the other hand learned Counsel for the State has submitted that at present stage this Court should not decide any issue raised on behalf of the Petitioner because admittedly appeal is remanded by the Board of Revenue before the Collector, Respondent No. 2 is still pending before the Collector who has heard the appeal and final orders have been reserved.

The aforesaid factual situation as per submission of the learned Counsel for the State is not controverted by learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances this Court is not persuaded to examine at this stage any of the issues or questions, that have been raised on behalf of the Petitioner. However, one apprehension of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 2 or other concerned Respondents, as appears from certain press reports, may take hurried steps to distribute the alleged surplus land without affording the Petitioner his legal right to challenge the appellate order before the revisional authority needs to be addressed although learned Counsel for the State has assured that Respondent No. 2 has no intention of bypassing the provisions of law and distributing any surplus land before allowing the Petitioner to avail his statutory remedy of revision. The final order that may be passed by the Collector is a revisable order and as per settled law notification u/s 15(3) of the Ceiling Act should be published only after remedy of revision is exhausted in accordance with law. Hence, it is observed that the lands declared surplus in the pending proceeding against the Petitioner in ceiling appeal No. 115/92-93 arising out of ceiling case No. 5/73-74 will not be taken possession of by the State and distributed to purcha holders till Petitioner exhausts this statutory remedy of revision in accordance with law and within the period of limitation prescribed for availing such remedy.

So far as Petitioner''s right of exercising option is concerned, the same should also be allowed to the Petitioner within short and reasonable time after disposal of appeal or his revision application if revision application is filed in accordance with law.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to learned Counsel for the State for communication.