Patna High Court
Naresh Mohan MishraversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The review was allowed, directing the State to issue a fresh notification exchanging the allotted surplus land with the specific 10 Bighas 1 Katha 18 Dhurs of land sought by the petitioners.
Summary
Petitioners Sanjeeb Kumar and Mihir Kumar challenged three orders relating to a land‑ceiling case (Land Ceiling Case No.38 of 1981‑82) filed by the State of Bihar. They argued that the authorities improperly relied on a magistrate’s report, ignored documents such as a horoscope and medical board report, and failed to allow them to select surplus land under Section 9 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. The original writ petition was disposed of on 12 March 2015 with a liberty to file an application under the now‑repealed Section 45B for reopening the case. While the petitioners later filed a Section 45B application, the amendment inserting Section 45D abated that proceeding, leaving them without remedy. The petitioners then filed a review seeking an exchange of 10 Bighas 1 Katha 18 Dhurs of land of their choice, alleging violation of natural justice. The State had no objection to this limited relief. The High Court allowed the review, directing the Additional Collector, Khagaria, to issue a fresh notification effecting the land exchange as prayed for.
Issues considered
- Whether the authorities could rely on a magistrate’s enquiry report not made available to the petitioners.
- Whether the authorities were required to consider ancillary documents such as horoscope, affidavit, and medical board report.
- Whether lands gifted to the petitioner's wife could be clubbed with the petitioner's lands for ceiling purposes.
- Whether surplus lands of other persons could be clubbed with the petitioner's lands.
- Whether the report of the Circle Officer regarding possession constitutes a statutory right.
- Whether the petitioners were denied their statutory right under Section 9 of the Ceiling Act to select surplus land, violating natural justice.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Land ceiling
- Section 45B
- Section 45D
- Section 9
- Natural justice
- Surplus land exchange
- Review petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.84 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10409 of 1992
======================================================
1.1. Sanjeeb Kumar, aged abut 60 years, son of late Naresh Mohan Mishra,
resident of B503, Railway Officers Enclave, New Motibagh, Behind Leela
Hotel, P.O. Chanakya Puri, P.S. Sarojni Bagar, New Delhi, 110021.
1.2. Mihir Kumar, aged about 57years (Male), son of Late Naresh Mohan
Mishra, resident of Mohalla Flat No. 105, Tower, Ganga 3, Sector D6,
Vasant Kunj, P.S. Vasant Kunj, South West Delhi, 110070.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and
Land Reforms, Patna, Bihar.
2. The Additional Collector, Khagaria.
3. The Collector, Khagaria.
4. The Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Shankar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Raj, Advocate
Mr. Simran Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
7 15-05-2026 Heard Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. Khurshid Alam, learned AAG 12 for
the State.
2. This review application has been filed for review of
the order dated 12.03.2015 passed in CWJC No.10409 of 1992
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
3. With consent of both the sides, this review
application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.84 of 2024(7) dt.15-05-2026
2/6
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
CWJC No.10409 of 1992 was filed challenging three order i.e.,
order dated 11.3.1991 passed in Land Ceiling Case No.38 (Kha)
of 1981-82 passed by the Collector, Khagaria, (Respondent
No.3); the appellate order dated 24.07.1992 passed in Land
Ceiling Appeal No.06 of 1991-92 by the Respondent No.3 and
the revisional order dated 26.09.1992 passed in Land Ceiling
Revision No.157 of 1992 by the Respondent No.4.
5. Learned counsel further submits that following
relief(s) was sought in the writ application:
“a) Whether the impugned order can be
sustained in law and on facts?
b) Whether the authorities could have relied
upon the enquiry report of the Magistrate
when the same was not made presence of
the petitioner?
c) Whether the authorities ought to have
considered the effect of other documents
like Horoscope, affidavit and report of
Medical Board?
d) Whether lands which are subject matter of
deed of gift dated 16.02.1963 executed in
favour of wife of the petitioner could have
been tagged along with the lands of this
petitioner especially when 20 acres of land
have been transferred?
e) Whether lands belonging to other persons
could have been clubbed with those of this
petitioner?
f) Whether the report of Circle Officer
regarding possession can be held to be a
statutory right?”
Patna High Court C. REV. No.84 of 2024(7) dt.15-05-2026
3/6
6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that C.W.J.C. No. 10409 of 1992 was disposed of by
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2015
and following order was passed:
"In above view of the
matter, the present writ petition is
disposed of with a liberty to the
petitioner to file an appropriate
application before the State
Government under Section 45B of the
Land Ceiling Act for re-opening for
the Land Ceiling Case No. 38(kha) of
1981-82 initiated and concluded
against the land holder- Naresh
Mohan Mishra. If such a petition is
filed on behalf of the petitioner, after
impleading all the necessary parties
within a period of six weeks from
today with a certified copy of the
present order, then the State
Government shall be obliged to
consider and decide his claims in
accordance with law by a reasoned
and speaking order, after giving
opportunity of hearing to all
concerned.
Since the matter has become
very old, it is expected that the
petition filed on behalf of the
petitioner under Section 45B of the
Land Ceiling Act shall be decided
expeditiously in accordance with law,
preferably within a maximum period
of nine months from the date of filing
of the application by the petitioner."
Patna High Court C. REV. No.84 of 2024(7) dt.15-05-2026
4/6
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at
the time of passing of the order dated 12.03.2015, the alternative
remedy was available under Section 45B of the Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus
Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as " The Ceiling
Act"). Accordingly, the petitioner moved an application under
Section 45B of The Ceiling Act before State Government for
reopening of Land Ceiling Case No. 38(Kha) of 1981-82 which
was registered as Case No. 03 of 2015 and during the pendency
of the said case, the provision of Section 45B of the Land
Ceiling Act was deleted by the amendment in the Land Ceiling
Act and the provision of Section 45D of The Ceiling Act was
inserted and it was provided that pending proceeding under
Section 45B stands abated in view of Section 45D of The
Ceiling Act. It is further submitted that the validity of the said
amendment was under challenged before the Hon'ble High
Court in various writ petitions which came to be decided finally
by order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench in
batch of cases bearing C.W.J.C. No. 15060 of 2019 whereby the
validity of the amendment was upheld by the aforesaid order
dated 13.10.2023. It is further submitted that pursuant to
affirmance of validity of Section 45D of the Ceiling Act and
Patna High Court C. REV. No.84 of 2024(7) dt.15-05-2026
5/6
subsequent changes in law has rendered the petitioners
remediless and, therefore, the present review application has
been filed to review the order dated 12.03.2015 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 10409 of 1992. Learned counsel further submits
that during the ceiling proceeding, the petitioner was not given
any opportunity to select lands of his choice as provided under
Section 9 of The Ceiling Act.
8. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for
the petitioners has confined his relief only with regard to his
choice of 10 Bighas 1 Katha 18 Dhurs lands, details of which
has been mentioned in paragraph no. 24 of the review
application. It is submitted that the petitioners have not been
given opportunity to select the lands of his choice and, thus,
have been deprived of their statutory rights under Section 9 of
The Ceiling Act, which amounts to violation of the principal of
natural justice. If the petitioner had been given an opportunity to
select his lands under Section 9 of the Act, he would have
preferred and selected the similar area of his choice which is
mentioned in paragraph no.24 of the review application situated
at village Katghara and Shirniyan; total 10 Bighas 1 Katha 18
Dhurs lands and, accordingly, prayed for issuance of a fresh
notification with reference to his choice. It is further submitted
Patna High Court C. REV. No.84 of 2024(7) dt.15-05-2026
6/6
that option was not given to the petitioners to opt the lands of
their choice and therefore, the lands as mentioned in paragraph
no.24 of the review application be exchanged from his allotted
lands out of the surplus lands.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG
12, appearing on behalf of the State has no objection to the
prayer. He submits that if the petitioner confines his prayer
only for exchange of 10 Bighas 1 Katha 18 Dhurs of the lands
as mentioned in paragraph no.24 of the review application, the
State-respondents have no objection in it.
10. Having regard to the aforesaid, this review
application is allowed. The State- respondents, particularly,
respondent no. 3 (the Additional Collector, Khagaria) is directed
to issue a fresh notification with regard to surplus lands of the
petitioners by exchanging the land already allotted to the
petitioners from the lands mentioned in paragraph no.24 of the
review application.
11. This review application is, accordingly, allowed.
12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(Khatim Reza, J)
J. Alam/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.