Patna High Court
Yasmin NehalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court held that the orders of the Additional Collector, Khagaria and the Bihar Land Tribunal are lawful and require no interference.
Summary
The petitioners, descendants of Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad, challenged the order of the Additional Collector, Khagaria dated 07.03.2015 and its affirmation by the Bihar Land Tribunal on 25.07.2024, arguing that earlier notifications under Section 15(1) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act had been quashed and that the re‑opening of the land‑ceiling cases was barred by the repeal of Section 45B and the introduction of Section 45D. The State contended that the re‑opening was permissible under the amended statute and that the transfers in 1963 were made to defeat the ceiling provisions, justifying the Collector’s findings. The Court examined the legislative history, the effect of the repeal and abatement provisions, and the finality of earlier High Court orders, concluding that the Collector and Tribunal acted within their authority. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed it, leaving the orders of the Collector and Tribunal undisturbed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the Additional Collector, Khagaria's order dated 07.03.2015 and its affirmation by the Tribunal in light of earlier quashed notifications under Section 15(1).
- Whether the repeal of Section 45B and the insertion of Section 45D of the Bihar Land Reforms Act render the re‑opening of the land‑ceiling cases abated.
- Whether the 1963 gift and sale transactions were intended to defeat the ceiling provisions, thereby invoking Section 5(5) of the Act.
- Whether the High Court orders of 12.11.1998 and 12.09.2007 attained finality and bind subsequent authorities.
- Whether the petitioners have standing without establishing their lineage to the original land‑holder.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 — s. 10(2), 10(3), 11(1), 15(1), 16(3), 16(4), 32A, 32B, 45B, 45D, 5(5)
Subjects
- land ceiling
- Bihar Land Reforms Act
- Section 45B repeal
- Section 45D abatement
- surplus land
- gift deed
- statutory interpretation
- writ petition
- civil writ jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13965 of 2024
======================================================
1. Yasmin Nehal W/o Late Nehaluddin Ahmad, resident of Village- Mushkipur,
P.S.- Anchal- Gogri, District- Khagaria, Bihar- 851203.
2. Aadil Nehal, S/o Late Nehaluddin Ahmad, resident of Village- Mushkipur,
P.S.- Anchal- Gogri, District - Khagaria, Bihar- 851203.
3. Ayesha Nehal, D/o- Late Nehaluddin Ahmad, resident of Village-
Mushkipur, P.S.- Anchal- Gogri, District- Khagaria, Bihar- 851203.
4. Md. Ali Ahmad, S/o Late Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad, resident of Village-
Mushkipur, P.S - Anchal- Gogri, District- Khagaria, Bihar- 851203.
5. Ishrat Jamal @ Ishrat Azad, W/o- Khalil Ashraf Azad, resident of Village -
Mushkipur, P.S.- Anchal-Gogri, District - Khagaria, Bihar- 851203.
6. Nusrat Jamal @ Nusrat Shahab W/o Late Shahab Naseeruddin, residing at
Flat No.- 303, Manna Surti Complex, West of Doctors Colony, Sampatchak,
P.S.- Kankarbagh, District - Patna, 800020, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and
Land Reforms, Government of Bihar.
2. The District Collector, Khagaria.
3. The Additional District Collector, Khagaria.
4. The Circle Officer, Gogri, District - Khagaria.
5. The Circle Officer, Chautham, District - Khagaria.
6. The Circle Officer, Mansi, District- Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Amar Shakti, Advocate
: Mr. Arya Achint, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GP-4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 18-04-2026
Heard Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioners duly assisted by Mr. Amar Shakti and Mr.
Manoj Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 representing the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
2/41
(A) PRAYER:
2. The present petition has been preferred for the grant
of following relief(s):
“(i) for appropriate order/orders for
quashing of the order of the Bihar Land Tribunal
dated 25.07.2024 passed in BLT Case No. 162 of
2023 whereby the Petitioners' application for
setting aside order dated 07.03.2015 passed by
Additional Collector, Khagaria wherein order
dated 29.02.1988 and Gazette Notification dated
16.09.1988 was affirmed in Land Ceiling Case
No. 82 of 1975-76, 01 of 1987-88, and 65 of
1994;
(ii) for appropriate order/orders for grant of
stay on the operation of the order dated
25.07.2024 passed by the Bihar Land Tribunal in
BLT Case No. 162 of 2023;
(iii) pass any other order/orders as deemed fit
and appropriate by this Court.”
(B) FACTS:
3. The matrix of the facts leading to the present writ
petition is/are follows:
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
3/41
4. One Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad transferred 674.24
½ acres of cultivable lands (out of the lands he held and
possessed), to his wife Bibi Noor Jahan @ Umme Kulsum on
01.08.1945 through a registered settlement deed. He divorced
the lady later in the year 1956 after which they ceased to have
any relationship as the husband and wife.
5. In the year 1975, a land ceiling case bearing Land
Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-76 was initiated before the
Additional Collector(Ceiling), Munger against Syed
Jamaluddin Ahmad in which the land settled in the year 1945
to Bibi Noor Jahan was also included. Accordingly, the draft
statement under section 10(2) of the Land Ceiling Act
(henceforth for short ‘the Act’) was published in the name of
Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad.
6. The Additional Collector, Munger, after hearing
the landlord and 22 other objectors as well as considering the
related documents and evidence, passed the final order dated
04.09.1982 whereby and where under he upheld all the
objections except five objections and accepted the said transfer
in favour of Bibi Noor Jahan @Umme Kulsum.
7. Later, Syed Shah Maqbool Hassan and others
appealed against the order dated 04.09.1982 which was rejected
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
4/41
by the District Magistrate, Munger. Bibi Maria and others
whose objections were rejected by the Additional Collector,
Munger also filed separate appeal bearing L.C. Appeal No. 51-
55 before the District Magistrate, Munger which too came to be
dismissed.
8. The Notification with respect to order dated
04.09.1982 was published under section 11(1) vide No. 9/R/85
in Land Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-76 on 20.03.1985.
However, the case is that the final notification under section
15(1) was never published.
9. The issue was brought before the Board of
Revenue, Bihar by filing five separate revision applications
bearing Revision Case No. 138-142 of 1985. All of them were
heard together and disposed of together by a common order
dated 22.09.1986 and ‘the Board’ upheld the transfer made in
favour of Bibi Noor Jahan in respect of the land which were
settled to her. The revision applications of the unsuccessful
objectors were dismissed and their claim was rejected by the
Board of Revenue.
10. After the order dated 22.09.1986 was passed by
the Board of Revenue, a separate land ceiling proceeding was
initiated against Bibi Noor Jahan vide Land Ceiling Case No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
5/41
01 of 1987-88.
11. However, the grievance is that out of nowhere, in
the absence of any fresh materials being brought on record or
considering the orders dated 04.09.1982 and 22.09.1986 passed
by the Additional Collector, Munger and the Board of Revenue,
Bihar respectively, the Additional Collector, Khagaria re-
opened the Land Ceiling Case No.82 of 1975-76 vide an order
dated 09.11.1987.
12. Two orders came to be passed on 29.02.1988 in
the Land Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-76 and Land Ceiling
Case No.1 of 1987-88 with the direction to issue final
notification under section 15(1) of ‘the Act’.
13. The Additional Collector, Munger published final
notifications under section 15(1) of ‘the Act’ in the name of
landholders, Bibi Noor Jahan and Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad
in Land Ceiling Case No. 1 of 1987-88 vide Notification No.
5/R/88 and in Land Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-76 vide
Notification No. 4/R/88 on 16.09.1988 respectively.
14. Being aggrieved by the re-opening of Land
Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-76, Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad (who
is the father of one of the Petitioner) preferred a writ petition
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Patna vide
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
6/41
C.W.J.C No. 8254 of 1988. The reopening of proceedings was
quashed vide order dated 17.11.1988 with an observation that
the Collector will proceed in accordance with law. (Annexure-
P/7 to the petition).
15. The contention is that in between, on 29.02.1988
in Land Ceiling Case No. 82/1975-76, an order was passed to
initiate a separate Land Ceiling proceeding against Bibi Umme
Kulsum in the light of order passed by the Members, Board of
Revenue, Bihar, Patna. Further held that the landholder was
entitled to one unit and as such though the rest of the lands have
been shown by the landholder to have been donated/sold, no one
appeared pursuant to the notice issued. Thus, clearly, it has been
transferred to defeat the Land Ceiling Proceeding. Accordingly,
direction has given for publication of notification u/s 15(1) of
‘the Act’ (Annexure – 5 series to the writ petition).
16. Accordingly, the gazette notification was issued on
16.09.1988 by which notification under section 15(1) of ‘the
Act’ (Annexure-6 to the writ petition).
17. The petitioners approached the Patna High Court
vide C.W.J.C No. 2943 of 1989 against the two orders dated
29.02.1988 and gazette notification dated 16.09.88. The
impugned orders and the notification were set aside vide an
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
7/41
order dated 12.11.1998 after holding that the orders were passed
without the issuance of notice to the landholder, a fact not
disputed by the respondents. The Court remitted back the Misc.
Case No. 01/1987-88 to the Additional Collector (Ceiling),
Munger for a decision afresh after notice and hearing the parties
including the petitioners (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition).
18. Pursuant to the order dated 12.11.1998 passed in
C.W.J.C No. 2943 of 1989, the petitioners approached the
Collector(Ceiling), Munger, letter dated 29.10.1999 was issued
by him with the direction to the Additional Collector, Khagaria
to stay the distribution of the lands.
19. The contention of the petitioners is that though the
authorities concerned had earlier issued ‘parchas’ to a
considerable number of people but these parcha holders were
never put in possession. The petitioners filed an application
before the Collector, Munger and requested for cancellation of
‘parchas’ issued considering that the notification dated
16.09.1988 has been was quashed by order dated 12.11.1998.
20. As the petitioners request to the respondents to
cancel ‘the parchas’ was not taken note of, they, thereafter
preferred C.W.J.C No. 12112 of 2005. It came to be disposed of
vide an order dated 12.04.2007 wherein the Collector,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
8/41
Khagaria was directed to see to it that both the proceedings
Land Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-76 re-numbered as Land
Ceiling Case No. 01 of 2006-07 (after Khagaria became a
district in the year 2002) and Land Ceiling Case i.e. No. 1 of
1987-88 are taken up together and disposed of finally in
accordance with orders of the superior authorities as also the
Patna High Court. (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition).
21. The order dated 12.04.2007 passed by the Patna
High Court in CWJC No. 12112 of 2005 (Yasmin Nehal vs.
The State of Bihar) is incorporated hereinbelow for proper
appreciation:
“As contemplated under the Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, a
proceeding was initiated in the then district of
Munger being Land Ceiling Case no. 82/1975-
76 against one Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad,
resident of Muskipur, Sub-Division-Khagaria,
District-Munger. Pursuant to objection filed, the
matter was decided and order passed in terms of
Section 10(3) of the Act by the Collector on
4.9.1982. By the said order, apparently, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
9/41
Collector accepted the transfer made by the land
holder in Favour of his wife in the year 1945.
The wife was divorced in 1956 but the gifts made
by the wife from those lands were not accepted
as valid. Thereafter adding those lands gifted by
the wife to the lands of the land holders, surplus
lands were declared and a notification in terms
of Section 15(1) was then published on 1.4.1985.
Under the said notification declaring and
acquiring surplus land to the extent of 211.55
acres was made. It appears that pursuant to the
said notification certain purchas were issued
distributing the surplus land, a no intimation of
any revision or any other proceeding impugning
the said order was brought to the notice of the
district authority. It appears that one of the
donees gift to whom had been not recognized as
valid apart from other, filed revision application
before the Board of Revenue, which allowed the
revision application with a direction that the
lands gifted to the wife by the registered patta of
1945 by the land holder had to be excluded from
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
10/41
the proceedings as against the land holders.
It now appears that as a consequence
of exclusion of those lands from the records of
the said land holder and treating it to be the land
of his wife Bibi Ume Kolsum @ Noorjahan
Begum, a separate ceiling proceeding was then
initiated being Land Ceiling Case no. 1/1987-88
and in those proceedings some lands, which
were earlier notified as surplus in the hands of
the land holder by notification dated 1.4.85 were
again declared surplus, which was then
challenged before this court in C.W.J.C. No.
2943 of 1989, which was disposed of by order
dated 12.11.1998, which set aside the said
second notification under section 15(1) dated
16.9.1988 and remitted the matter which to the
Additional Collector (Ceiling), Munger for a
fresh decision after hearing the parties.
The effect is that first the notification
dated 1.4.1985 under section 15(1) as against
the said land holder Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad
stood materially altered by order of the Board of
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
11/41
Revenue. Subsequently, similarly, the
notification issued on 16.9.88 though in respect
of some lands treating them lands to be of Bibi
Noorjahan was also set aside by this Hon'ble
Court but both these proceedings i.e. 82 of
1975-76 and 1 of 1987-88 remain inconclusive
and in law both the notification therein issued
under section 15(1) did not attain finality.
I may also mention that all the lands
which are concerned in the two ceiling
proceedings were situated in the Sub-Division
Khagaria of district Munger and the land holder
and other also resided therein. Khagaria Sub-
Division was then made into a district and as
such in 2002 the records of L.C. Case no. 82/75-
76 was then directed to be transferred to the
newly formed Khagaria district and it finally
surfaced in 2006 and now has ben numbered as
Land Ceiling case no. 1/2006-07 in the Land
Ceiling Court of Khagaria district as against the
land holder.
The grievance of the petitioners, who
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
12/41
are the children of the original land holder Syed
Jamaluddin Ahmad is that consequent to the
order dated 4.9.82 and thereafter the notification
dated 1.4 85, to which the petitioners had no
knowledge certain purchas were issued but these
proceedings got modified by virtue of revisional
order of the Board of Revenue, which order was
not given effect to and the notification under
section 15(1) dated 1.4.1985 continued to
operate, notwithstanding, it being virtually set
aside by the Board of Revenue. This is also
sought to be demonstrated by the fact that some
lands are covered in both notifications under
section 15(1) i.e. notification dated 1st April,
1985 and notification dated 23.2.1998. In the
first the notification the lands were treated to be
lands of Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad in the second
notification, they were treated to be the lands of
Bibi Noorjahan.
As noted above, both those
notifications lost efficacy because of
subsequent orders but purchas were not
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
13/41
canceled nor parcha holders were restrained
from disturbing the present writ petitioners-the
present and holders. This is what has brought
the petitioners to this court.
To this court after hearing the parties
and perusing the affidavit and counter affidavit
filed, it is clear that the authorities have lost
sight of the two cases. The first case against
Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad being L.C. Case no.
82/1975-76 as before the ceiling authorities in
the district of Munger is now newly numbered
as L.C. Case no. 1/2006-07 before district
authorities Khagaria and the second case being
L.C. Case no. 1/1988-89 as against the Bibi
Noorjahan remains before the district
authorities of Munger. The two proceedings are
pending and have not been finally culminated.
Whatever may be the effect of the final order
that may be passed, this much is sure and
certain that the declaration of surplus land as
contained in the respective section 15 (1)
notifications cannot be given effect to and till
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
14/41
such time they cannot be given effect purcha
could have been issued, muchless, seen that
they are enforced. As purchas have been issued
the consequence would be that the authorities
would be well advised to keep the enforcement
thereof in abeyance till matters are finally
redecided and fresh notification issued. I
accordingly direct so.
However, I also direct that as purchas
have been issued, the purcha holders would be
liable to be heard because they are entitled to
get some other lands which may also be
declared surplus in case the lands for which
they were given purchas are held not to be
surplus. I accordingly direct.
The Collector, Khagaria district
would be well advised to see that both the
proceedings are taken up and finalised in
accordance with the orders of the superior
authorities and this court expeditiously, so that
finality is arrived and different people know of
their rights and liabilities as early as possible.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
15/41
With this observation and direction
this writ application stands disposed of.
Let a copy of the order be given to
State counsel for communication to the
Collector, Khagaria for compliance.”
(emphasis added)
22. The grievance of the petitioners is/are that the
Additional Collector, Khagaria, after hearing the parties under
the orders of remand passed by this Court disposed of the
petition vide orders on 07.03.2015 in Land Ceiling Case No.01
of 1987-88 and Land Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-76 (re-
numbered as Land Ceiling Case No. 01 of 2006-07) in complete
contravention of existing provisions, affirmed the two orders
dated 29.02.1988 and notifications dated 16.09.1988 in a
mechanical manner. The Additional Collector, Khagaria held
that since the land had been gifted/sold by the landholder
between a short period of 15.04.1963 to 17.04.1963, the
transfers were made with the intent to defeat the provisions of
‘the Act’.
23. The contention of the petitioner is that the
Additional Collector, Khagaria in passing such order failed to
appreciate section 5 (5) of ‘the Act’. While section 5 of ‘the Act’
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
16/41
specifies that no person can hold land in excess of the ceiling
area, clause (5) of the section 5 of ‘the Act’ provides an
exception and states that any land-holder may make transfers
before the commencement of ‘the Act’ and within six months
after the commencement by way of gift any land to his son, or
daughter, or any children of son or daughter or anyone else who
would have inherited the said land and such transfer would be
considered valid under law.
24. Section 5(5) of ‘the Act’ read as follows:
5. No person to hold land in excess of the
ceiling area (1) (i)It shall not be lawful for any
person to hold, except as otherwise provided
under this Act, land in excess of the ceiling
area.
(5) Any land-holder, subject to the provisions of
the tenancy law of the area may, if he has not
already transferred, transfer, till the
commencement of this Act and within six
months thereafter by way of gift any land held
by him as raiyat to his son, daughter, any
children of his son or daughter, or to such
other person or persons who would have
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
17/41
inherited such land or would have been entitled
to a share therein had the landholder died
intestate in respect thereof at midnight between
the date of the commencement of this Act and
the day just preceding such date so as not to
exceed, together with any other land held by the
donee, the area the donee can hold under
Section 5."
25. Aggrieved, the petitioners thereafter preferred
C.W.J.C No. 3487 of 2015 before Patna High Court for
quashing of the orders dated 07.03.2015. However, vide an
order dated 04.07.2016, CWJC No. 12718 of 2012 and CWJC
No. 3487 of 2015 were rejected by the Court with liberty to
appear before the Bihar Land Tribunal (henceforth for short
‘the Tribunal’).
26. The petitioners thereafter approached ‘the
Tribunal’ by filing of B.L.T Case No. 669 of 2016 which was
disposed of vide order dated 25.05.2017 observing that section
45B of ‘the Act’ has been repealed and hence proceedings
pending and reopened earlier deemed to be abated.
27. The petitioners thereafter filed C.W.J.C No.
14219 of 2017 before the Patna High Court the challenging
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
18/41
order dated 25.05.2017 passed by ‘the Tribunal’ wherein vide an
order dated 10.11.2022, the impugned order was quashed and
the matter was remitted back to ‘the Tribunal’ for fresh
consideration of all the issues raised by the Petitioners.
28. The petitioners thereafter approached ‘the
Tribunal’ vide B.L.T Case No. 162 of 2023 which came to be
dismissed vide an order dated 25.07.2024.
29. The order dated 25.07.2024 passed in the B.L.T.
Case No.162 of 2023 (Yasmin Nehal vs. The State of Bihar)
read as under:
“22. This Tribunal on perusing the order
passed by learned Additional Collector, dated
07.03.2015 in Land Ceiling Case No. 82 of
1975-76 finds that learned Collector has
considered the case of the petitioners in detail
and also considered the various orders passed by
different courts and held that land gifted by the
landlord or land sold by the landlord was done
almost on same day, dated 15.04.1963 and
17.04.1963, which shows that the aforesaid
transaction was made with intention to defeat
the purpose of land ceiling proceeding. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
19/41
learned Additional Collector accordingly
affirmed the order dated 29.02.1988 passed by
then Additional Collector (Ceiling), Munger and
Gazette Notification made under Section 15(1) of
the Act, dated 16.09.1988.
23. It is also relevant to mention that
Section 45B of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation
of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus
Land) Act, 1961 has now been repealed by
Gazette Notification dated 02.09.2016. The
amended Notification provides that Section 45B
of the Ceiling Act, 1961 is now repealed. There
is no such provision as Section 45B of the
Ceiling Act. By aforesaid notification, new
Section has been added as Section 45D, after
Section 45C of the Act.
24. Section 45D provides that after
repeal of Section 45B, all matters relating to re-
opening either before the State Government or
Bihar Land Tribunal shall be deemed to have
been abated and proceeding already re-opened
earlier, under deleted Section 45B and pending
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
20/41
before the Collector or B.L.T shall also stand
abated and no fresh matter relating to re-
opening of Ceiling Case under Section 45B of
the Act now can be entertained.
25. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid notification of Section 45B, the
learned Collector in compliance of the order
passed in C.W.J.C No. 2943 of 1989 and
C.W.J.C No. 12112 of 2005 has considered the
case afresh without re-opening the matter on
the basis of material available on record and
came to the finding by giving cogent reason
that landlord had with intention to defeat the
purpose of Ceiling proceeding made various
transaction in the form of Gift Deed and sale of
the land in question almost on the same day
dated, 15.04.1963 and 17.04.1963 and has
accordingly upheld the earlier order dated
29.02.1988 passed by then Additional Collector,
Munger in Land Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-
76. The learned Additional Collector, Munger
has also affirmed the final Gazette Notification
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
21/41
made under Section 15(1) of the Ceiling Act
dated 16.09.1988.
Therefore, this Tribunal does not find
any illegality in the impugned order dated
07.03.2015 passed by learned Additional
Collector, Khagaria in Land Ceiling Case No.
82 of 1975-76/01 of 1987-88/65 of 1994
whereby the order dated 29.02.1988 passed by
learned Additional Collector in Ceiling Case
No. 82 of 1975-76 and the Gazette Notification
dated 16.09.1988 were affirmed.
This application is accordingly
dismissed.”
Sanjay Priya
Chairman
(emphasis added)
(C) ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE PETITONERS:
30. The contention of the petitioners as put forward by
the learned Senior Counsel is that ‘the Tribunal’ while passing
the order dated 25.07.2024 failed to appreciate that the
Additional Collector affirmed the orders dated 29.02.1988 and
final notifications dated 16.09.88 ignoring the orders passed by
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
22/41
the Superior authorities as also the Patna High Court inasmuch
as the orders/final notifications were already quashed by the
High Court in C.W.J.C No. 2943 of 1989 vide an order dated
12.11.1998.
31. The further submission is that the Courts below
wrongly appreciated the order dated 12.11.1998 wherein it was
directed to the Collector to take a decision afresh after
noticing/hearing the parties including the petitioners. Thus, the
Additional Collector(Ceiling), Munger erred in deciding the
issue as L.C. Case no. 1/87-88 was already set aside by the
Court vide an order dated 17.11.1988 in CWJC No. 8254 of
1988.
32. The submission is that the Courts below ought to
have appreciated that both the Ceiling proceedings i.e. 82 of
1975-76 (re-numbered as Land Ceiling Case No. 01 of 2006-07)
and 01 of 1987-88 attained finality because reopening of both
the ceiling proceedings were quashed by the Court vide an order
dated 17.11.1988.
33. The further contention is that as the notifications
were set aside by coordinate benches of this Court and not
challenged by the respondent authorities, hence it attained
finality. Thus, reaffirmation of the order dated 29.02.88 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
23/41
notifications dated 16.09.88 by the order in question needs
interference.
34. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Courts
below further failed to appreciate that once the Land ceiling
proceedings in Land ceiling case no. 82 of 1975-76 were upheld
by order dated 04.09.1982 as also by the Board of Revenue, it
has attained finality. Hence any findings on transactions taking
after recording that it was to defeat the provisions of ‘the Act’ is
illegal and not in consonance with orders passed by the Patna
High Court.
35. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the last order
dated 12.04.2007 (in CWJC No. 12112 of 2005) restricted the
respondents to act in accordance with the orders of the superior
authorities and this Court expeditiously. Thus the respondents
could not have heard the matter afresh and pass the order in
question.
36. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the
Courts below failed to appreciate that landholders gifting the
lands or selling it between 15.04.1963 to 17.04.1963 were not
made with the purpose to defeat the provisions of ‘the Act’, but
those were genuine transfers well within the ambit of law.
37. In support of the said contention, learned Senior
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
24/41
Counsel relied on the order of the Division Bench of the Patna
High Court in the case of Sudhakar Jha & Ors. vs. The State
of Bihar and Ors. (and analogues cases) [reported in 2024 (3)
PLJR 403 (DB)] with reference to paragraph no. 52 which
read as follows:
52. The applications stand disposed of in the
following terms:-
(i) The applications so far as the
challenge to the constitutional validity of the
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area
and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment)
Act, 2016 as also that of the Bihar Land Reforms
(Fixation of Surplus Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 2019 are
concerned, stand dismissed.
(ii) The following cases either
challenge the Amendment Act, 2019 and/or arise
out of an application under Section 16(3) of the
Act. The cases arising out of an application
under Section 16(3) of the Act stand abated.
They are all the cases in the instant batch of
applications except CWJC No. 1840 of 2019,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
25/41
CWJC No. 2728 of 2019 and CWJC No. 10416
of 2020.
(iii) It may be mentioned here that by
Amendment Act, 2016, Section 45B of the Act
was repealed and Section 45D added, which
provided that after repeal of Section 45B of the
Act, proceedings pending before the State
Government or the Bihar Land Tribunal as also
pending before the Collector shall stand abated.
Both Section 45D and 16(4) provide for the
consequence upon repeal of Section 45B and
Section 16(3) of the Act. The language of Section
45D is different from that of Section 16(4). While
Section 16(4) provides that all cases of
proceedings pending before the Tribunal or the
Authorities mentioned therein 'or in any other
Court' shall abate, the words 'or in any other
Court' does not find mention in Section 45D.
Thus, in this view of the matter, the Court is of
the opinion that those matters arising out of an
application under Section 45B of the Act having
been decided by the Authorities or the Tribunal
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
26/41
and applications preferred against the said
orders being pending in this Court, though the
Constitutional validity of the Amendment Act,
2016 has been upheld, these cases will have to
be listed before the appropriate bench having
roster, for it to be decided on it's own merits. The
cases falling under this category are CWJC No.
1840 of 2019, CWJC No. 2728 of 2019 and
CWJC No. 10416 of 2020.”
38. She further took this Court to a case fo Patna High
Court in Bishwadeva vs. State reported in 1999 (2) PLJR 882
with reference to paragraph no. 7 which read as follows:
“7. After hearing the parties and on perusal
of the record I find substance in the submission
advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the
proceeding under section 45B of the Act cannot
be re-opened only to consider the correctness of
the earlier order passed by the competent
authority under the Act. Only in case where the
earlier order has been passed on incomplete
material or fresh material has come to the notice
of the authorities from different sources the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
27/41
proceeding can be re-opened but it cannot be
opened only on the ground that the Presiding
Officer has not correctly decided the matter as
has been done in this case. The orders appended
with the writ application clearly show that the
authority after having come to the conclusion
that injustice has been done to the petitioner by
declaring the plots, which were allowed to be
retained by him, as surplus land and wrongly
distributed to the landless persons, passed an
order for release of the land, which was wrongly
treated as surplus land, in favour of the
petitioner and put him in possession. As such it
cannot be said that the order passed in favour of
the petitioner is on the basis of the
misrepresentation and suppression or on the
basis of the incomplete record. Only because
some landless persons were dispossessed
because of the order passed by the Ceiling
Authority to do justice to the land holder, the
Collector has no power to re-open the
proceeding.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
28/41
39. She submits that the Ceiling Proceeding cannot be
reopened to consider the correction of the earlier order passed
by the competent authority under ‘the Act.
40. The third order relied upon by the petitioners is of
Full Bench Case of Patna High Court in the case of Harendra
Prasad Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1984
BBCJ 879 with reference to paragraph nos. 9 and 19 which
read as follows:
“9. The submission aforesaid, instead of
aiding the stand of the writ petitioner, appears to
me, in fact, as heavily boomeranging on it. By
the settled canons of construction, a Statute has
to be construed as a whole and its provisions
have to be read harmoniously. When sections
32A and 32B are read together, they seem to run
patently counter to the writ petitioner's stand.
Both of them, with effect from the 9th of April,
1981, cry a halt to all the earlier proceedings
and to begin on a clean slate and to have them
disposed of afresh. These again have to be re-
determined or decided afresh in accordance with
the provisions of section 10 of the Ceiling Act,
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
29/41
i.e., in accord with the changes brought about in
the law. As has already been noticed, the whole
thrust of the Amending Act was to bring about
changes in the substantive law and to effectuate
them by directing a re-determination in
accordance therewith. The legal pun that is
sought to be made out on behalf of the writ
petitioner on the ground that section 32B does
not employ the word 'abatement' is of no
consequence. Indeed it is well settled in legal
terminology that the term 'abatement' is usually
employed with regard to appeals, revisions,
reviews, etc. To say that the original proceeding
pending before an authority would abate
appears to be inapt legal phraseology.
Therefore, the Legislature has employed the term
of abatement with regard to appeals, revisions,
reviews or references and thereafter directed that
the Collector shall proceed with the case afresh
in accordance with provisions of section 10 by
section 32B. However, when it came to pending
proceedings (other than those covered earlier by
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
30/41
section 32A), section 32B provided that (except
those which had achieved finality already before
the 9th of April, 1981 by express publication
under the unamended section 11(1) of the
Ceiling Act) these pending proceedings must be
disposed of afresh in accordance with the
amended law. Far from the fact that nothing
would have turned on the non-employment of the
word 'abatement' in section 32B, in fact, the
reading of both the sections would indicate that
the Legislature had in mind the identical results
to follow, namely, a re-determination or disposal
afresh in accordance with the amended law in
either case. Indeed, it was plausibly argued
before us on behalf of the respondents that the
categoric mandate to decide afresh is even
something stronger and larger than mere
abatement. The word "abatement' connotes only
a ceasing or putting an end to the proceeding.
The direction to decide afresh not only wipes
away the earlier decision or finding but directs a
fresh application of mind and a decision there
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
31/41
after and in a way would even be on a larger and
stronger footing. The specious argument resting
on the non-employment of the word 'abatement'
in section 32B must fail.
19. Once that is held, the clue or, indeed, the
answer to the three distinct questions
automatically falls into its place. It is
accordingly held as under:
(i) Under the mandatory provision of
section 32B the Revenue authorities are obliged
to dispose of afresh all pending proceedings
except those in which final publication under
sub-section (1) of section 11 of the Ceiling Act
had already been made prior to the 9th of April,
1981, being the date of the commencement of the
Amending Act.
(ii) After the enforcement of the
Amending Act on the 9th of April, 1981, if the
Revenue authority proceeds to publish a
notification under the provisions of the old
unamended section 11(1) of the Ceiling Act, it
would plainly be ignoring and contravening
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
32/41
section 32B and nullifying the object and
purposes thereof.
(iii) The failure to dispose of the
pending proceedings afresh and the final
publication by way of notification under section
11(1) of the old unamended Act after the 9th of
April, 1981 would be wholly without jurisdiction
and, therefore, non est.”
41. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the last order
of the Patna High Court can be construed as that of the
respondents having being restricted to giving an opportunity to
the parcha holders and was to act only with regard to the orders
of Superior authorities/High Court’s order.
42. Alternatively, the submission is that following the
orders of Patna High Court, it should have been reopened and
the respondent Additional Collector should not have just
affirmed the earlier orders passed.
43. Learned Senior Counsel concludes by submitting
that the order in question in the aforesaid background needs
interference.
(D) STATE’s CASE:
44. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
33/41
Respondent nos. 2 to 4 duly put on affidavit by the Circle
Officer, Gogri, Khagaria.
45. The contention as put forward by the learned State
counsel is that the petitioners filed C.W.J.C. No.3487 of 2015
before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 07.03.2015
passed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria in Land Ceiling
Case No.82/1975-76 and 01/1987-88 (Supplementary Land
Ceiling Case No.65 of 1994). The said writ petition was heard
and dismissed on 04.07.2016 with the liberty to the petitioners
to approach ‘the Tribunal’, for grant of appropriate relief(s) with
respect to the lands in question.
46. The petitioners thereafter filed a BLT Case
No.669/2016 before ‘the Tribunal’, under Section 45B of the
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition
of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 in which an order was passed on
25.05.2017 as under :-
"These applications relates to re-opening of
ceiling care, already disposed off, under section
45B of The Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)
Act. 1961. The section 45B of The Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
34/41
Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 has been
repealed by gazette notification 02.09.2016, the
amended notification provides that section 45B of
the Ceiling Act, 1961 is now repealed and now
there is no such provision as section 45B of the
Ceiling Act, through this notification new section
has been added as section 45D, after 45C of the
'Act'. Section 45D provides that after repeal of
section 45B all matters relating to re-opening
either before the State Government or Bihar
Land Tribunal shall be deemed to have abated
and proceedings already re-opened earlier, under
section 45B and pending before the Collector or
BLT shall also stand abated and no fresh matter
relating to re-opening of Ceiling Cases under
Section 45B of the act, now can be entertained.
Since the matter is still pending, as such it shall
also stand abated. These applications are
disposed off. State is being represented by Mr.
Dilip Kumar A.G.P.
K.P. Ramaiah
Member Administrative
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
35/41
47. The petitioners thereafter preferred CWJC
No.14219 of 2019 (Yasmin Nehal & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar)
which was disposed of on 10.11.2022 and the Patna High Court
remitted the matter back to ‘the Tribunal’ for fresh consideration
after quashing of the order dated 25.05.2017.
48. This followed the B.L.T. Case No. 162 of 2023
(Yasmin Nehal & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). ‘The
Tribunal’ vide an order dated 25.07.2024 rejected the claim of
the petitioners and held amongst the other that Section 45D of
‘the Act’ provides that after repeal of Section 45B of ‘the Act’,
all matters relating to re-opening either before the State
Government or Bihar Land Tribunal shall be deemed to have
been abated and proceeding already re-opened earlier, under
deleted Section 45B and pending before the Collector or B.L.T
shall also stand abated and no fresh matter relating to re-opening
of Ceiling Case under Section 45B of the Act now can be
entertained.
49. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid notification of
Section 45B of ‘the Act’ that came into force during the
pendency of the case, the learned Collector in compliance of the
order passed in C.W.J.C No. 2943 of 1989 and C.W.J.C No.
12112 of 2005 has considered the case afresh without re-
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
36/41
opening the matter on the basis of material available on record
and came to the finding by giving cogent reason that landlord
had with intention to defeat the purpose of Ceiling proceeding
made various transaction in the form of Gift Deed and sale of
the land in question almost on the same day i.e. between
15.04.1963 and 17.04.1963 and has accordingly upheld the
earlier order dated 29.02.1988 passed by then Additional
Collector, Munger in Land Ceiling Case No. 82 of 1975-76.
50. Learned State counsel further submits that ‘the
Tribunal’ has rightly observed that in view of repeal of section
45-B of ‘the Act’, the respondents considered the case afresh
without the reopening of the matter on the basis of the materials
available on the record and came to a cogent finding which need
no interference.
51. He submits that it is not the case of the petitioners
that they challenged the order dated 12.09.2007 (in CWJC No.
12112 of 2005) passed by the Writ Court in the Yasmin Nehal
(supra) case. Thus the revenue authorities were fully justified in
taking up the case and dispose of both the Land Ceiling
Proceeding Case Nos. 82 of 1975-76 and 01 of 1987-88 strictly
in accordance with the order dated 12.09.2007.
52. Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned State counsel further
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
37/41
submits that the writ petitioners have even failed to inform this
Court by providing a genealogy to show actually they belong to
which family, Late Syed Jamaluddin Ahmad or Bibi Noor Jahan
@ Umme Kulsum. He submits that on this ground alone, the
writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
53. Learned State Counsel submits that the order
dated 12.09.2007 clearly observed that the Collector, Khagaria
district would be well advised to see that both the proceedings
are taken up and finalized in accordance with the orders of the
Superior authorities and this Court expeditiously.
54. He submits that the respondents rightly took up
the matter and after recording the facts of the case came to the
conclusion that the decision taken earlier needs no interference.
55. Learned State counsel conclude by submitting that
the writ petition lacks merit and as such, is fit to be dismissed.
(E) REPLY OF THE PETITIONERS:
56. The reiteration of the petitioners by way of reply
is that the ‘The Tribunal’ failed to appreciate that the re-opening
of the Land ceiling case was already quashed vide order of the
Writ Court dated 17.11.1988 in (CWJC No. 8254 of 1988).
57. Moreover, the respondent authorities have failed
to appreciate that the transfer of lands were accepted by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
38/41
Additional Collector, Munger in 1982 and such transfer was
confirmed again in revision proceedings before the Board of
revenue in 1986. It as such became final and can not be meddled
with by the respondent authorities by reaching to a different
conclusion in absence of any fresh material.
58. Similarly, ‘Parchas’ were issued based on such
reopened proceedings, and pursuant to such flawed
notifications, regarding which the petitioners had approached
the Hon'ble Court in CWJC No. 12112 of 2005.
59. However, learned Senior Counsel on query was
unable to throw light on the submissions put forward by the
learned State Counsel about the status of the petitioners
inasmuch as they represent which ancestor, late Syed
Jamaluddin or late Bibi Noor Jahan @ Umme Kulsum.
(F) FINDINGS:
60. This Court has gone through the facts of the case
and the submissions put forward by the respective parties. It has
further taken note of the fact that vide an order dated 12.09.2007
in CWJC No. 12112 of 2005, the Patna High Court remanded
the matter back to take decision as per the orders/directions
given by the Superior Authorities/court orders.
61. This Court has also taken note of the fact pointed
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
39/41
out by the learned State counsel that the petitioners nowhere in
the writ petition have stated as to which lineage they belonged
to: late Syed Jamaluddin or late Bibi Noor Jahan @ Umme
Kulsum. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners also failed
to throw light on this point.
62. Further, it has to be taken note of the fact that the
order dated 12.09.2007 passed by the Writ Court in the [CWJC
No. 12112 of 2025 (Yasmin Nehal vs. The State of Bihar)]
was never challenged by the petitioners and as such all the
previous orders passed in the matter got merged with the order
passed.
63. The Additional Collector, Khagaria took up the
matter, went into the proceedings and on the basis of the
materials available on records and having gone through it came
to the finding that the transfers were made with an intent to
defeat the purpose of the ceiling proceedings, passed the order
dated 07.07.2015 in question.
64. So far as the order of the Division Bench of Patna
High Court in the case of Sudhakar Jha (supra) is concerned,
this Court has to agree to the conclusion arrived at by the Court
that in absent of the words ‘or in any other Court’, in section
45D of ‘the Act’, the pending cases have to be disposed/decided
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
40/41
by the Court. ‘The Tribunal’ accordingly took up the matter and
decided it on 25.07.2024 on merit.
65. Regarding the case of Division Bench in the case
of Harendra Prasad Singh (supra), the same deals with section
32B of ‘the Act’ and records that after the amendment, all the
cases have to be decided afresh. However, with respect to the
case of the petitioners, the same is not applicable as the matter
was considered and decided in the year 1988 and thereafter also
in the year 2015.
66. So far as the case of Bishwadeva (supra) is
concerned, it has nothing to do with the present case. In the
Bishwadeva (supra) matter, the Patna High Court held that
under section 45B of ‘the Act’, the matter cannot be reopened
only to make the correction of the order. Here, the matter was
actually taken up for consideration pursuant to the order passed
by the Court on 12.09.2007 in the Yasmin Nehal (supra) case.
67. This Court reiterates that the base of the entire
case is the order dated 12.09.2007 passed by the Patna High
Court in CWJC No. 12112 of 2005 and it authorized the
respondents to act strictly in line with the order of the Superior
Authorities and Patna High Court. The Additional Collector
(Ceiling), Khagaria accordingly passed the order in question.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13965 of 2024 dt.18-04-2026
41/41
(G) CONCLUSION:
68. In the aforesaid background, this Court is of the
opinion that the orders passed by the Additional Collector,
Khagaria on 07.03.2015 and stamped by ‘the Tribunal’ vide an
order dated 25.07.2024 need no interference.
69. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Interim order stands vacated.
70. I.A. if any, also stand disposed of.
71. Let a copy of the order be sent to the Collector,
Khagaria for perusal and needful.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 15.04.2026
Uploading Date 18.04.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…