Holding

Section 32‑A abates pending proceedings but requires the Collector to restart the case under Section 10, which continues to permit objections and the admission of evidence.

Summary

The appeal arose from land‑ceiling proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961, where the original draft statement was prepared, objections were considered, but final publication was not made. After the 1982 amendment, the matter was taken up afresh under Section 10, and the parties raised objections concerning land classification and gifts made during the grace period. The respondents argued that the amendment’s provisions, particularly Sections 32‑A and 32‑B, required the case to be restarted and that the earlier draft statement could not be re‑examined. The Supreme Court held that Section 32‑A merely abates pending appeals, revisions, reviews or references, and mandates that the Collector proceed afresh under Section 10, which still allows objections to be filed within the prescribed period and evidence to be adduced. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.

Issues considered

What is the effect of Section 32‑A of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1961 (as amended in 1982) on pending appeals, revisions, reviews or references?
Does the repetition of a draft statement after the amendment preclude the filing of objections under Section 10(3)?
Whether the parties are deprived of a fair opportunity to be heard under the amended statutory scheme?

Legislation cited

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961s. 10(1), s. 10(3), s. 11, s. 16(3), s. 32-A, s. 32-B, s. 6, s. 8, s. 9
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982

Subjects

Land ceilingDraft statementObjectionAbatement of appealSection 32-ABihar Land Reforms ActFresh proceedingsLand classification

Judgment

~
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 281
-~~

SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. A
II.
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

. FEBRUARY 1, 2008
(Civil Appeal No. 1263 of 2001)

8
•t [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
~\ Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 - s.10(3), 32A -
Preparation of Draft publication - Consideration of objections c,
by authorities - However, final publication not made -
Amendment introduced by 1982 Act - Repetition ~f draft
statement prepared earlier - Objections to draft publication -
Held: Can be taken within stipulated time and authorities
required to consider them by virtue of sub-section (3) of s.10-
D
There is also provision for adducing evidence - Therefore,
~. contention that person who wants to prefer objection is
deprived of adequate opportunity is without substance - Blhar
Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Amendment Act, 1982.
E
Proceedings were initiated under the Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Act, 1961 against the landholder family of
'B'. 'K' was daughter-in-law and 'BO' was grand daughter
: .-A. of '8'. In the said Land Ceiling case, after draft publication
F
and on consideration of the objection made by '8', orders
were passed by competent authority against which the
aforesaid persons filed revision application. Revisional
authority accepted some of the obj~ctions of '8' and
rejected others. However, as final publication was not
-~ made, after the amendment of the Act by Bihar Land G
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Amendment Act, 1982, the matter was taken
afresh from the stage of s.10 of the Act. At the stage of
fresh proceedings, objections were raised regarding the
281 H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A · classification of lands and exclusion of lands gifted to
daughter-in-law, grand daughter and to daughters within
the grace period. The competent authority accepted part
of the objections and ordered for exclusion of the land
gifts during grace period in favour of two daughters and
B rejected the objection relating to the classification of land."
On appeal, appellate authority accepted part of the
objection. Certain lands which were earlier classified as
Class-I land were held not properly to have been done.
However, the other part of the classification was held to
c be valid. The gift made in favour of the two daughters was
confirmed but the claim relating to deletion of I.and gifted
in favour of daughter-in-law and grand daughter was
rejected. The revision thereagainst was dismissed .. The
writ petition was dismissed. In the writ appeal, the stand
taken was that the effect of the amended provisions i.e.
0
ss.32A and 328 had not been kept in view; that there was
no de novo enquiry and that having been not done, the
judgment of the Single Judge was unsustainable. The
Division Bench did not find any substance in the plea and
E with reference to s.10 of the Act, dismissed the writ appeal.
In appeal to this court, appellant contended that the
true effect of the amendment has not been kept in view. If
the draft statement was repeated there was not need for
·inserting ss. 32A .and 328 and that there was need for
F enquiry and the procedures contemplated under ss.6, 8
and 9 were to be adopted.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : A bare reading of s.32-A of Bihar Land
G Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land) Act, 1961 shows that where an appeal,
revision, review or reference other than those arising out
of order passed under s.8 or sub-section (3) of s.16 is [
pending before any authority on the date of rI
commencement of the Act, the same shall abate. The
H
-f
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. v. THE STATE 283'
OF BIHAR AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

proviso is of significance. It stipulates that the Collector A
. shall proceed with the case afresh in accordance with
provisions of s.10. Sub-section (1) of s.1 O deals with
preparation of draft statement. Sub-section (3) is of
considerable importance. It provides that when there is
any objection to the draft statement in respect of the 8
,,,t matters specified in clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-
section (1) received within 30 days of the publication of
the draft statement or service thereof under sub-section
(2), whichever is latter, when preferred by any person
having claim or interest in the matters shall be considered ,C
by the Collector and after giving reasonable opportunity
of adducing evidence, the Collector shall pass such
orders as it deems fit. Even though there is repetition of
the draft statement which was prepared earlier, the scope
for making objection as provided under sub-section (3)
D
of s.10 still exists. If the noticee has any objection to any
.,,. . part of the draft statement in respect of the specified
· matters, the same can be taken within the stipulated
period and the authorities are required to consider them.
There is also provision for adducing evidence. That being
so, the stand that the person who wants to .prefer the E
objection is deprived of adequate opportunity is without
substance. [Paras 8-9] [289-C-H; 290-A, B]
_.._ CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal No.1263
of 2001. F
From the final Judgment and Order dated 10.12.1999 of
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LP.A. No. 572/1998.
P.S. Mishra, H. Thathagat, Upendra Mishra, R.C. Prakash,
Sunita Rani Singh and Rajesh Prasad Singh for the Appellants.
~, G
Manish Kumar and Gopal Singh for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court H
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants.
2. The factual controversy lies in a very narrow compass.
Proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)Act; 1961 (in short
B the 'Act') were initiated against the landholder family of Budh
Prakash Singh. Smt. Kamla Devi was daughter in law and Smt.
Bageshwari Devi was grand daughter of aforesaid Budh
Prakash Singh. In the said Land Ceiling Case No. 23/73-74
after draft publication and on consideration of the objection
c made by Budh Prakash Singh, orders were passed by the ·
L.R.D.C., Aurangabad against which the aforesaid persons filed
an application for revision before the revisional authority. By
order dated 7 .4.1977 ,the revision al authority in revision case
No.1986/76 accepted some of the objections of Budh Prakash
D Singh, but parts of the objections were rejected. However, as
final publication was not made, after the amendment of the Act
by Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition
of Surplus Land) Amendment Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to
as the' Amendment Act'), the matter was taken afresh from the
E stage of Section 10 of the Act. At the stage of fresh proceedings
following objections were raised:
(a) The classification of lands was not properly made.
(b) The lands which belonged to the son Chittaranjan
Prasad Singh (now deceased) should not have been
F included.
(c) The lands gifted to Smt. Kamla Devi, daughter-in-
law; lands gifted to Smt. Bageshwari Devi, grand
daughter and lands gifted to two daughters, namely,·
Nirmala Kumari and Sashibala within the grace
G
period should be excluded."
3. L.R.D.C. by order dated 14.5.1984 accepted part of
the objection and ordered for exclusion of the land gifted during
grace period in favour of two daughters, namely, Nirmala Kumari
H
--i
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. v. THE STATE 285
__ .. OF BIHAR AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
and Sashibala. However, rest of the objections including the A
-f objection relating to classification of land was rejected. A Ceiling
Appeal was preferred and the appellate authority by order dated
10.9.1985 accepted part of the objection. Certain lands which
were earlier classified as Class-I land were held not properly to
have been done. However, the other part of the classification B
was held to be valid. The gift made in favour of the two daughters
,.. t was confirmed but the claim relating to deletion of land gifted in
favour of daughter-in-:law, Kamla Devi and grand daughter
Bageshwari Devi was rejected. Thereafter revision case
No.387/85 was preferred. The revisional authority by revisional
order· dated 28.4.1987, rejected the same. A writ petition was
c
filed before the High Court and the primary stand was relating
to classification made fo declare certain lands as surplus.
Similarly, non-exclusion of the gifts in favour of Kam la Devi ahd
Bageshwari Devi were questioned. The State's stand was that
0
the amended definition of "landholder" as amended in 1973 was
applicable. It was pointed out that the land ceiling proceedings
~-
were not initiated against any "individual" but against the family.
Jn view of the definition of the expression "family'', Kam la Devi,
Bagehswari Devi and Chittaranjan Prasad Singh come within
the definition of "family" and their ·1and stood included. So far as E
the classification is concerned, it was submitted that after due

. ' verification and with reference to irrigatipnal facility available
the classification was made.

_....., 4. Learned Single Judge oftl'le High Court did not find any F
substance in the stand taken in the writ,petition. It was noted
that gift was made in favour of Bageshwari Devi when she was
Ghild of about 8 months and even after such alleged gift rent
· was paid to Budh Parkash Singh and the lands purportedly to
be gifted to Kamla Devi and Bageshwari Devi were, in fact, in
G
the po~session of Budh Parkash.Singh. The writ petition was
. -~ . dismissed. In the writ appeal, the stand taken was that the effect
of the amended provisions i.e. Sections 32A and 328 had not
been kept in view. It was submitted that there was no de novo
enquiry and that having been not done, the judgment of the
H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A learned Single Judge was unsustainable. The Division Bench .,,~
· did not find any substance in the plea and with reference to "'-
Section 10 of the Act, writ appeal was dismissed.
ti·' 5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the true effect of the amendment has not been
B kept in view. If the draft statement was repeated there was no
need for inserting Sections 32A and 328. According to him,
~
there was need for enquiry and the procedures contemplated ....
under Sections 6, 8 and 9 were to be adopted.

c 6. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
supported the orders.
7. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to take note of
Sections10, 11, 32Aand 328 of the Act. They read as follows:
"10. Preparation of draft statement,-(1) On the basis of
D
the information given by or on behalf of the land holder
under Section 6, 8, 9 or the information obtained by the
Collector under Section. 7, checked in the prescribed
manner, the Collector shall cause a draft statement to be.
. .,
prepared showing the following particulars
E
(a) the area and description of- -
(i) each class of land held by the land-holder and the
J
land selected by him which he desires to be included
within his ceiling area ;
F
(ii) orchards held by him and the orchards in compact >--
blocks he desires to retain ;
(iii) homestead land and the pucca structures including
the land necessary for the use and enjoyment of such
G structures, held by him on the date of commencement
of this Act, and such land pucca structures including r
land necessary for the use and enjoyment of the
pucca structures which he desires to retain ;
(b) area and description of land of each of the categories
H
--i-- SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. v. THE STATE 287
OF BIHAR AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]

in clause (a) which is allowed by the Collector to be held A
,-~
and retained by the land holder under Section 5;
(c) the area and description of the land which is in excess
of the limit permissible under Section 5 and which the
land holder is not entitled to hold or retain under this Act
(hereinafter to be called_ the 'surplus' lead); B

2[(c-1) the area and description of land transferred by the
,...:lo: land-holder in accordance with or in contravention of the
provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 ;
(c-2) the substance of the findings of the Collector under c
clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5;
(c-3) the substance of the recommendation and order
regarding exemption under Section 29; and]
(d) any other particular which may be prescribed. D
[(2) The draft statement shall be published in the Official
Gazette of the district and at such places, and in _such
..... manner, as may be prescribed: ·
Provided that a copy of the draft statement shall be served E
on the landholders concerned or on their guardian or
guardians, as the case may be, by registered post with
acknowledgment due which shall be conclusive evidence
of the service of such notice.]

____., [(3) Any objection to the draft statement in respect of the F
matters specified in clause (a), (b), (c) and (d) of
subsection (1) received within 30 days of the·J'Ublication
of the draft statement or service thereof under sub-section
(2), whichever is latter. preferred by any person having
any claim or interest in said matters shall be considered G
by the Collector who shall, after giving the parties a
~ "reasonable opportunity of being heard and adducing
evidence, pass such order as he thinks fit
Provided that the Collector may on an application made
H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. +--
A by the land-holder or a person having claim or interest in the
land extend the period of filing objection by another fifteen days.]
...,.
"
11. Final publication of draft statement-((1) When the
objection or claim if any, preferred under sub-section (3)
of Section 10 has been disposed of, the Collector shall,
B whether there is any surplus land or not, make such
alteration in the draft statement as may be necessary to
give effect to any order passed on the objection or claim ~

and shall cause the said statement with the alteration, if
'" (-
any, to be finally published in the official Gazette of the
c district and in such place and in such manner as may be
prescribed and a copy thereof duly certified by the
Collector in the prescribed manner, shall be sent to the
land-holder by registered post with acknowledgment due.]
((2) Copies of such statement duly authenticated in the
D
prescribed manner shall by the Collector within such period
and to such authority or authorities, as may be proscribed.]
32-A. Abatement of appeal, revision, review or reference.- -~
An appeal, revision, review· or reference other than those
E arising out of order passed under Section 8 or sub-section
(3) of Section 16 pending before any authority on the date
of commencement of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of
Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land)
(Amendment) Act, 1982 shall abate .
F Provided that on such abatement, the Collector shall
.L
proceed with the case afresh in accordance with the
provisions of Section 10:
Provided further that such appeal, revision, review or
reference arising out of orders passed under Section 8 of
G
sub-section (3) of Section 16 as has abated under Section
13 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area )-
and Acquisition _of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Ordinance, ..
f
1981 (Bihar Ordinance No. 66 of 1981) shall stand '
automatically restored before the. proper authority on the
H
---i SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. v. THE STATE 289
OF BIHAR AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
...,_ ... commencement of this Act. A
32-B Initiation offresh proceeding.-All those proceedings
other than appeal, revision, review or reference referred
to in Section 32-A pending on the date of commencement
of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and
Acquisition of Surplus Land) (Amendment) Act, 1982 and IP
.;.._
in which final publication under sub-section (1) of Section
11 of the Act as it stood before the amendment by the
aforesaid Act, had not been made, shall be disposed of
afresh in accordance with the provisions of Section 10 of
the Act".] 6
8. A bare reading of Section 32-A shows that where an
appeal, revision, review or reference other than those arising
out of order passed under Section 8 or sub-section (3) of Section
16 is pending before any authority on the date of
D
commencement of the Act, the same shall abate. The proviso
is of significance. It stipulates that the Collector shall proceed
,.___ with the case afresh in accordance with provisions of Section
10. The interpretation given by the learned counsel for the
appellants is that the use of the expression "afresh" means that
whatever was done earlier has to be totally obliterated and there E
has to be a fresh look on all aspects including classification
and status of the parties involved. Sub-section (1) of Section
1Odeals with preparation of draft statement. Sub-section (3) is
of considerable importance. It provides that when there is any
____.__ objection to the draft statement in respect of the matters F
specified in clause (a}, (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) received
within 30 days of the publication of the draft statement or service
thereof under sub-section (2), which ever is latter, when preferred
by any person having claim or interest in the matters shall be
considered by the Collector and after giving reasonable G
opportunity of adducing evidence the Collector shall pass such
--(
orders as it deems fit. Even though there is repetition of the
draft statement which was prepared earlier, the scope for making
objection as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 10 still
exists. If the noticee has any objection to any part of the draft H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

A statement in respect of the specified matters, the same can be
taken within the stipu'lated period and the authorities are
required to consider them. There is also provision for adducing
evidence.
9. That being so, the stand that the person who wants to
8 prefer the objection is deprived of adequate o"pportunity is
without substance. )

10. In view of the above position, there is no merit in this
appeal which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order
c as to costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.

. '""