Patna High Court
Ashok Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Bihar on 10 July, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10787 of 2025
======================================================
1. Ashok Kumar Tiwari Son of Late Sharda Prasad Tiwari, Permanent Resident
of village- Katanahia, P.O. and P.S. Deoria District- Deoria. At present
residing at House No. 269/G, Shakti Nagar Colony, Gorakhpur, P.O. Arogya
Mandir, P.S. Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur (U.P)
2. Satya Prakash Tiwari, Son of Late Sharda Prasad Tiwari, Permanent
Resident of village- Katanahia, P.O. and P.S. Deoria District- Deoria. At
present residing at House No. 269/G, Shakti Nagar Colony, Gorakhpur, P.O.
Arogya Mandir, P.S. Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur (U.P)
3. Vipul Kumar Tiwari, Son of Late Ved Prakash Tiwari, Permanent Resident
of village- Katanahia, P.O. and P.S. Deoria District- Deoria. At present
residing at House No. 269/G, Shakti Nagar Colony, Gorakhpur, P.O. Arogya
Mandir, P.S. Shahpur, District- Gorakhpur (U.P)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Chairman cum Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Collector, West Champaran.
5. The Additional Collector (Ceiling), District- West Champaran.
6. Shatrundam Shahi, Son of Late Ran Vijay Shahi, Resident of village and
P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Shikarpur, District- West Champaran.
7. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Son of Late Ashok Kumar Singh, Resident of Village-
Panchgachhia, District- Saharsa.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Garg, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh, GA-3
Mr. Dilip Kr. Singh, AC to GA-3
For the Respondent No. 2 Mr. Naresh Dixit, Advocate
Mrs. Kalpana, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-07-2025
Heard the parties.
(A) PRAYER:
2. The present writ petition has been preferred for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
2/51
following relief(s):
"For issuance of an appropriate writ/
writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature
of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.12.2024
passed by Hon'ble chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal,
Patna In BLT Case No. 1111 of 2024 whereby the
Hon'ble chairman, Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna has
affirmed the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by
Learned Chairman Cum Member, Board of Revenue,
Bihar Patna in Surplus Case No. 16 of 2022 whereby
the Respondent no. 2 has dismissed the case filed by
petitioners by imposing cost of Rs. one Lakh with
directing that same should be deposited with the
Board of Revenue in 15 days and he also affirmed
the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by Learned
Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur Respondent no.3 in Land Ceiling
Appeal No. 35 of 2019 (Ashok Kumar Tiwari and
others Vs. the State of Bihar) whereby Respondent
no.3 affirmed the order dated 22.01.2019 passed by
Learned Collector, West Champaran at Bettiah in
Ceiling case No. 60 of 1973-74 (though the objection
was filed by petitioners as well as petitioners' Mother
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
3/51
and Grandmother in Ceiling Case No. 79 of 1973-
74) whereby the Learned Collector has dismissed the
claim of petitioners and directed for publishing the
Final publication under section 11(1) of the Ceiling
Act.
(II). For issuance of an appropriate writ\
writs, order\orders, direction directions in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to
exclude the land of petitioners from the Ceiling
proceedings by cancelling the gazette notification
dated 31.01.2002 to the extent to the land of the
petitioners only and further restrain the respondents
authorities from distributing the land in question as
well as interference in the physical possession of
petitioners during the pendency of present case
before this Hon'ble High Court."
(B) FACTS:
3. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are sons while the
petitioner no. 3 is the grandson of the late Sushila Devi.
4. The matter relates to the lands situated under the
Circle Office, Bagaha-2 in the district of West Champaran and
the original land holder is/was Shatrumardan Shahi. The claim
of the petitioners is/are that some of the lands of Shatrumardan
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
4/51
Shahi was settled with one Panna Ji in the year 1948 before the
vesting of the lands with the State of Bihar.
5. The details of the land is/are as follows:
"Khata No. 3, Khesra No. 384, 385 and
386, area 6 bigha, 10 Katha, 10 dhur situated in
the village and P.S. Semra, District - West
Champaran."
6. The case of the petitioners is/are that Panna Ji's
son, Ashok Singh later executed power of attorney in favour of
the son of the Shatrumardan Shahi namely Ran Vijay Shahi with
regard to the land in question.
7. The further case is that Ran Vijay Shahi in turn sold
the land to the mother of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely late
Sushila Devi on 23.06.1970 and the family also got their names
entered into revenue records in the year 1994-95.
8. A Ceiling Proceeding 60 of 1973-74 was
continuing in the name of Satrumardan Shahi which later
came to be bifurcated into three different ceiling cases namely
(i). LC case no. 78/1973-74(State vs. Jay Kumar Sahi), (ii) LC
case no. 79/1973-74 (State vs Ran Vijay Sahi), (iii) LC case
no. 60/1973-74 (Satrumardan Sahi).
9. However, after the death of Satrumardan Shahi in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
5/51
the year 1981, it got amalgamated again as Land Ceiling Case
No. 60 of 1973-74 with two other cases.
10. Earlier, an order came to be passed by the
Additional Collector, West Champaran on 26.02.1976 in L.C.
Case no. 60 of 1973-74. The Collector, West Champaran
affirmed the order vide an order dated 10.02.1977. The matter
went to the Board of Revenue, Bihar vide Case no. 371 of 1977
(Ashok Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar) and vide an order
dated 27.05.1977, the matter was remanded back to the
Additional Collector, West Champaran for fresh consideration in
accordance with law.
11. The petitioners journey in the present case starts
with the Mutation case no. 337 of 1994-95 when the Circle
Office created jamabandi no. 670 in the name of late Sushila
Devi for the lands purchased in the year 1970. Thus the first rent
receipt that the petitioners had possesses is of the year 1994-95.
12. In the another round of litigation in R.A. Case No.
32 of 1997-98 (Ran Vijay Shahi vs The State of Bihar), the
Collector, West Champaran vide an order dated 28.01.2002
rejected the claims of the land holders including those who
claimed to have purchased the lands from their vendors. This
followed the gazette notification under Section 15(1) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
6/51
Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling) Act, 1961
(henceforth for short 'the Act') on 31.1.2002.
13. The Landholders filed CWJC no. 2271 of 2002
and Patna High Court sent the matter to the Board of Revenue,
Bihar vide an order dated 14.02.2002.
14. Thereafter the matter once again travelled to Patna
High Court in CWJC No. 8890 of 2004 (Ran Vijay Shahi vs.
State of Bihar) and on 21.05.2007, the matter was remanded to
the Collector, West Champaran for its expeditious disposal.
(the copy of the order has not been brought on
record by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it
was only during the hearing that upon query, a copy was
provided for the perusal of the Court)
15. The petitioners preferred their objections on
09.10.2018
before the Collector, West Champaran.
16. The Collector, West Champaran thereafter took up
the Land Ceiling Case No. 60 of 1973-74 (Shatrumardan
Shahi vs State) in which all the stake holders including the
petitioners were heard. The voluminous order was passed on
22.01.2019 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition) rejecting the
claim and the relevant paragraphs relating to the petitioners
is/are recorded hereinbelow:
fnukad&05-10-18 dks lR; izdk’k frokjh] firk&Lo0 lquhrk
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
7/51nsoh] ifr&Lo0 lkjnk frokjh] l0 dFkufg;k] Fkkuk&nsofj;k]
orZeku irk&lsejk ds }kjk [kkrk la0&03] [ksljk la0 384]
385 ,oa 386 dk jdck 6 ch?kk] 10 dB~Bk] 10 kwj ds lanHkZ esa
nkok fd;k x;k gSA buds }kjk fnukad&23-06-70 dks Hkwfe dz;
gksuk cryk;k x;k gS fd] fdarq nkos ds leFkZu esa dksbZ yxku
jlhn nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gSA blh lanHkZ esa ekuuh; mPpr
U;k;ky; ds }kjk State of U.P. vs. District Judge, AIR
1979 SC 53 esa obserb fd;k x;k gS fd “It is settled
law that mutation entries are only for the purpose
of enabling the State Li”V gS fd ;g fuc/aku Hkwgncanh
vf/kfu;e dks izHkkfor djus dh fu;r ls fd;k x;k d`R; gSA
blh ifjizs{; esa Ram Prasad Yadav Vs State of Bihar,
AIR 1990 Pat. 137: 1990 (1) BLJR 229: 1990 (2)
PLJR 3: 1990 (1) BLJ 252 es m)fjr gS fd “Actual
posession of the land is not necessary to constitute
a person as Raiyat. A raiyat, as defined, means a
person holding land for the purpose of cultivating
himself or by the members of his family.” bl ekeys
esa rks vkifrdrkZ dk n[ky&dCtk Hkh Hkwfe ij ugha gSA Qyr%
buds nkos dk vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA
fnukad&09-10-18 dks v’kksd dqekj frokjh] foiqy dqekj
frokjh] lR;izdk’k frokjh] ekrk&Lo0 lq’khyk nsoh] lk0
c’kjFkiqj] xksj[kiqj] ‘kfDruxj dkWyksuh] Fkkuk&’kkgiqj]
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
8/51
ftyk&xksj[kiqj ds }kjk fuEukafdr Hkwfe ds lanHkZ esa vkifr ntZ
djk;k x;k gS &
nkok fd, tk jgs Hkwfe dk fooj.k&
ekStk [kkrk [ksljk jdck
lsejk 03 384 1-18-10
03 384 4-0-0
03 385 0-8-0-10
386 0-3-10-0
buds }kjk vius nkos ds leFkZu esa dksbZ Hkh fucaf/kr
nLrkost vFkok yxku jlhn dh Nk;kizfr nkf[ky ugha fd;k
x;k gS] ftlls budk nkok izekf.kr gks ldsA blds
vfrfjDr ;g Hkh ,d rF; gS fd bl dk;kZy; ds }kjk fuxZr
uksfVl ds vkyksd esa rFkkdfFkr iUuk th vFkok buds okfjlku
ds }kjk i{k ugha izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA Qyr% buds nkos dks
vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA
17. The Collector, West Champaran thereafter
concluded the matter as follows:
fuxZr uksfVl ds vkyksd esa ;k rks dqN mifLFkr ugh gq,] vkSj
tks mifLFkr gq, muds }kjk dksbZ cogent document
vius leFkZu esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA tSlk dh iwoZ esa
mfYyf[kr gS fd vf/kdr ys[;kdkjh fcgkj jkt; ds ckgj ds gSa]
rFkk bUgsa ,d gh frfFk esa cgqrsjs Hkwfe;ksa dk fuca/ku fd;k x;k
gSA blds lanHkZ esa dksbZ rdZ ugh fn;k x;k gSA
fofHkUu vkifÙkdrkZvksa ds }kjk lefiZr vkifÙk dh foospuk
ds dze esa ;g Hkh ik;k x;k fd “in~ek nsoh” tks fd fuca/ku
fd, tkus ds vof/k esa ukckfyx Fkha] dh vksj ls muds firk
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
9/51ds }kjk vf/kdrj Hkwfe dk fuca/ku fd;k x;k gSA vkifÙkdrkZvka
ds }kjk ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd “in need of money,
land holder executed deed on behalf of his minor
daughter Padma Devi” ;g vius vki esa ,d fopkj.kh;
rF; gS fd vkf[kj dkSu lh ifjfLFkfr;ka vpkud ls mRiUu gks
xbZ gS brus cM+s Hkw/kkjh dks vpkud ls yxkrkj frfFk;ksa esa ¼,d
gh frfFk dks dbZ ckj½ Hkwfe;k ¼cM+s cM+s VqdM+ksa esa½ fcdzh djus dh
vko”;drk vk iM+hA uk dsoy Hkw/kkjh ds }kjk Lo;a] cfYd vius
iq=h ds Guardian ds gSfl;r ls ,oa budh vksj ls Power
of Autorny ds ek/;e ls dbZ;ksa ds }kjk Hkwfe dh fcdzh dh xbZ
gSA dszrk Hkh ,sls O;fDr gS fd ftudk dksbZ existence
proof ugha fd;k x;k gS] tSls iUuk th] jaxth] hye th]
bR;kfn] bu yksxksa dk irk fcgkj jkt; ds ckgj xqtjkr]
dksydkrk] mÙkj izns”k dk gS] blds lanHkZ esa dksbZ rdZ
ugha fn;k x;k gSA dbZ vU; ys{;kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk [kqn
rks Hkwfe dk transaction fd;k gh x;k gS] cfYd viuh
vksj ls dbZ;ksa dks tehu dh fcdzh ds fy, Power of
Autorny/eq[rkjukek vke Hkh fn;k x;k gSA Power of
Autorny Hkh vius Collusive O;fDr dks fn;k x;k gSA Li’V
gS fd Hkw/kkjh ds }kjk ,d lksph&le>h lkft”k ds rgr ek=
vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa dks foQy djus dh dqfVy ea”kk ls ,sls
d`R; fd, x, gA bl lanHkZ esa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }
kjk State of UP V/s Amar Singh esa observe
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
10/51(reportable as State V/s Amar Singh (1997) 1 SCC
(734) fd;k x;k gS fd &
“The Supreme court was of the opinion that
the land holder claiming that the transfers made by
him, had not been made to defeat the provisions of
ceiling laws, must successfully discharged the
burden of proof lying on him to show that the
transfers made were bonafide and seem
transactions for the purpose of avoiding or
defeating the provisions of land ceiling Act.
;fn “benami transaction” dh ifjHkk’kk THE
PROHIBITION OF BENAMI PROPERTY
TRANSACTIONS ACT, 1988 ds rgr ns[kh tk, rks
blesa vafdr gS fd ” (A) a transaction or an
arrangement –
(a) where a property is transferred to, or is held
by, a person, and the consideration for such
property has been provided, or paid by, another
person; and
(b) the property is held for the immediate or
future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who
has provided the consideration; ,oa “benamidar” dh
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
11/51ifjHkk’kk ns[kh tk, rks vafdr gS fd “a person or a
fictitious person, as the case may be, in whose
name the benami property is transferred or held and
includes a person who lends his name;”
blds vfrfjDr vf/kfu;e esa izko/kkfur gS fd
“Notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any judgement, decree or order of any
court or authority the Collector shall have power
to; make enquiries in respect of any transfer of land
by a land-holder whether by a registered instrument
or otherwise made after the 22nd day of October,
1959, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was
made with the object of defeating, or in
contravention of the provisions of this Act or for
retaining, benami or farzi land in excess of the
ceiling area, the Collector may after giving
reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear
and be heard, annual such transfer and thereupon
the land shall be deemed to be held by the
transferor for the purposes of determining the
ceiling area he may hold under this Section.” mDr
ls Li’V gS fd Hkw/kkjh ,oa vkifÙk drkZ vius nkos dks iq’V djus
esa vlQy jgs gSA
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
12/5110- ofl;rukek& Hkw/kkjh dh vkifÙk gS fd muds nknk
“k=qenZu “kkgh ds }kjk fnukad& 24-02-1982 ¼viuh e`R;q ds Ms<+
ekg iwoZ½ ,d olh;rukek execute fd;k x;k Fkk] ftlds rgr
d`f’k ;ksX; Hkwfe dks bUgs /kkfjr djus dk vf/kdkj fn;k x;k ,oa
xSj d`f’k ;ksX; Hkwfe;ksa dks vU; ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dks /kkfjr
djus dk vf/kdkj fn;k x;kA bl ofl;rukek dks ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; ds }kjk Testamentary okn la[;k& 01@85 ds }
kjk Probate fd;k x;k gSA bldh Nk;kizfr ek= nkf[ky fd;k
x;k gSA mYys[kuh; gS fd Hkw/kkjh dh ofl;rukek dh ewy izfr
nkf[ky djus dk vkns”k o’kZ 2015 esa gh fn;k x;k Fkk] fdarq
buds }kjk vkns”k ikfjr fd, tkus rd nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k
gSA vkSj uk gh buds }kjk vius }kjk nkok fd, tk jgs Hkwfe;ksa
dks gh Point out fd;k x;k gSA ;gka Li’V djuk vko”;d gS
fd ofl;rukek ds vuqlkj gh vf/klwpuk dk izdk”ku fd;k x;k
gSA blfy, budk rDZ vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA
11- Hkw/kkjh dh ;g Hkh vkifÙk gS fd Hkwnku ;K dfefV dks dbZ
lkjh Hkwfe;ksa nku nh xbZ Fkh] bls Hkh “kkfey dj fy;k x;k gS]
fdUrq blds lanHkZ esa nku ls lacaf/kr dkxtkr nkf[ky ugha
fd;k x;k gSA ;gka Li’V dj nsuk vko”;d gS fd ;fn dksbZ
O;fDr Hkwnku ;K dfefV okyh Hkwfe ij clk, x, gS] rks Hkh
muds }kjk nkok ugha fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh fopkj.kh; rFk gS
fd buds }kjk Hkwnku dfefV dks Hkwfe nku dh Hkh xbZ gksrh rks
mls vuqlwph&lh esa “kkfey dj vafre :i ls vf/klwfpr fd;k
tk,xk] tks lq;ksX; Js.kh ds xjhc Hkwfeghuksa ds chp forj.k ds
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
13/51dke vk,xkA
12- Hkwnku ;K dfEkfV dks nku dh Hkwfe ,oa LosPNk ls
ljs.Mj dh xbZ Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lk{; izLrqr djus dk vkns”k
ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds gh }kjk ikfjr vkns”k fnukad & 21-
05-2007 ds ek/;e ls fn;k x;k gS] fdarq dksbZ Hkh dkxtkr
izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA dsoy vkifÙk vkosnu i= esa vafdr
dj nsus ek= ls fdlh m|”; dh iwfrZ ugha gksrh gSA
13- Hkw/kkjh dh vkifÙk ;g Hkh gS fd iwoZ hkw/kkjh ds }kjk
cguksa dks o’kZ 1948 esa iêk ds ek/;e ls Hkwfe cUnkscLr dh xbZ
FkhA bUgsa o’kZ 2015 esa gh cUnkscLrh iêk dh Nk;kizfr nkf[ky
djus dk vkns”k fn;k x;k] fdarq nkf[ky ugha fd;k tk ldkA
,slh Hkwfe;ksa dks Hkh Point out ugha fd;k x;k gS] vkSj u gh
dksbZ nkok fd;k x;k gSA
14- Hkwfe ds oxhZdj.k ds lanHkZ esa vkifÙk dh xbZ gS] fdarq
;gka Li’V dj nsuk vko”;d gS fd Hkwfe dk oxhZdj.k] vapy
vf/kdkjh ds }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij vafdr fd;k
x;k gSA vkifÙk esa dksbZ rdZ ugha fn;k x;k gS] vkSj uk gh dksbZ
Bksl dkxtkr nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSA blfy, budh ;g vkifÙk
Hkh fujk/kkj gSA
15- Hkw/kkjh dh ;g Hkh vkifÙk gS fd vU; O;fDr;ksa ds Hkwfe
dks Hkh bl okn esa “kkfe dj fy;k x;k gSA buds }kjk blds
lanHkZ esa dksbZ izek.k ;k losZ [kfr;ku dh izfr nkf[ky ugha fd;k
x;k gSA ;fn eku Hkh fy;k tk,] rks Hkh blds fy, vf/klwpuk
ds fo:) vkifÙk vkgwr dh xbZ] fdarq dqN dks NksM+dj fdUgha ds
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
14/51Hkh }kjk vkifÙk ntZ ugh djkbZ xbZA budh ;g vkifÙk Hkh
fujk/kkj gSA
16- ikjl Bkdqj ,oa vU; dh vksj ls fo}ku vf/koDrk Jh
v”kksd “kekZ ds }kjk Indian Evidence Act dh /kkjk&90 dk
gokyk nsdj 30 lky iqjkus dkxtkrksa dks lgh ekuus dk vuqjks/k
fd;k x;k ,oa rdZ fn;k x;k fd mDr ds vkyksd esa ;s
dkxtkr Null & Void gksus yk;d ugh gSA
Indian Evidence Act dh /kkjk&90 esa m)fjr gS
fd “Presumption as to documents thirty years old.-
Where any document, purporting or proved to be
thirty eyars old, is produced from any custody
which the Court in the particular case considers
proper, the Court may presume that the signature
and every other part of such document, which
purports to be in the handwriting of any particular
person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the
case of a document executed or attested, that it was
duly executed and attested by the persons by whom
it purports to be executed and attested.”
bl lanHkZ esa ;fn ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds }kjk
ikfjr vkns”k Sri Lakni Bauran And Others vs Sri
Padma Kanta Kalita and Ors. (Reportable as Sri
Lakni Baruan And Others vs Sri Padma Kanta
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
15/51
Kalita & Ors. (1996) INSC 321 (26th Februrary
1996) esa m)fjr gS fd “In the facts of this case, the
presumption under Section 90 was not available on
the certified copy produced by the defendants and
in our view, the High Court is justified in refusing
to given such presumption in favour of the
defendants. We may also indicate that it is the
discretion of the Court to refuse to give such
presumption in favour of a party, if otherwise, there
is occasion to doubt due execution of the document
in question. The plaintiff’s definite case was that
the deed of sale in favour of Holiram was a forged
and fabricated document. In the aforesaid facts,
there was a requirement to produce the original
copy so that the question of due execution by
plaintiff no. 1 could have been contested by the
parties.
In the aforesaid facts, no interference is called for
in this appeal and the appeal is dismissed with
cost.”
vr% mijksDr ds vkyksd esa buds }kjk fn, x, rdZ dks
vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA
17- ;g Hkh vafdr djuk lfefpu gksxk fd ifjokj esa /kkj.k
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
16/51
djus gsrq fn, x, NwV ds fcanw ij Hkw/kkjh ds }kjk dksbZ vkifÙk
ugha fd;k x;k gSA
18- mijksDr vkns”k esa dbZ rF;] ik”oZvof/k esa rRdkyhu
lekgrkZ ds }kjk blh ekeys esa ikfjr vkns”k ds leku gks ldrs
gSa] pwafd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds }kjk bl lanHkZ esa vafdr
fd;k x;k gS fd “so far as persons who were duly
noticed are concerned, whether they appear or not,
the matter as against them would stand concluded
by earlier findings.”
fu’d’kZ
eSaus bl okn esa izkjEhk ls vc rd dh xbZ lHkh dk;Zokfg;ksa
dk voyksdu fd;k rFkk le;≤ ij bu oknksa esa ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky;] ivuk@ekuuh; jktLo Ik’kZn] fcgkj]
iVuk@vk;qDr] frjgqr izeaMy] eqtQQjiqj ds U;k;kns”kksa lfgr
okn ds lkFk lac) u,@iqjkus] ¼blfy, vafdr djuk iM+ jgk gS
D;ksafd ;s dkxtkr ,slh fLFkfr esa gS] fd ;s gYds gkFkksa ls Hkh
Nquk ek= ls QV jgs gSa] bUgsa lgstuk nq’dj gSA ½ dkxtkrksa dk
voyksdu fd;kA ;g okn dkQh yEcs vlsZ ls vafre :i ls
fu’iknu gsrq yafcr gSA ,slk ugh gS fd iwoZ esa bl okn dk
fu’ikknu ugha gqvk gSA gqvk gS] fdUrq Hkw/kkjh ds izR;sd ckj bl
U;k;ky; ds ikfjr vkns”k ds fo:) vihy nk;j djus dh
izo`fÙk] dwVjfpr dj l`ftr dkxtkr] Hkwgncanh dh tfVy ,oa
yach izfdz;k ds dkj.k ckj&ckj ;g okn bl U;k;ky; esa u,
lhjs ls vkns”k ikfjr djus ds fcanq ij okil izkIr gks tkrk gS]
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
17/51
vkSj ojh; U;k;ky;ksa ds vkns”k ds en~nsutj iqu% 1973 esa izkjEHk
dh xbZ izfdz;k dks nqgjkuk ykteh gks tkrk gSA Bihar Land
Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition
of Surplus Land) Act dh tfVyrk ,oa yach izfdz;k dks
nqgjkus ¼izfdz;kRed =qfV uk jg tk,½ ds dze esa
lky&nj&lky inkf/kdkjh dk LFkkukarj.k ,oa inLFkkiu Hkh
oknksa ds yafcr jgus dk ,d cM+k dkj.k gSA D;ksafd u;s
inkf/kdkjh }kjk okn dk iquZoyksdu vko”;d gS] vU;Fkk
izfdz;kRed =qfV jgus dh izcy laHkkouk cuh jgrh gSA bl fy,
esjs Hkh inLFkkiu ¼fnukad& 03-08-2017½ ds i”pkr~ tc ;g okn
izFke ckj fnukad& 20-12-2017 dks esjs le{k miLFkkfir fd;k
x;k] mlds mijkar ls eSaus hkh bl okn dk xgurk ls voyksdu
fd;k ,oa Hkw/kkjh ds }kjk nkf[ky vkifÙk;ksa dk ckjhdh ls
voyksdu djus ds mijkar bldk fcanqokj tkap izfrosnu vapy
vf/kdkjh] cxgk&2@jkeuxj@ujdfV;kxat@xkSukgk ls
ekaxk ,oa izfrosnu izkIr gksus ds mijkar ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;]
iVuk ds vkns”k ds vkyksd esa vko”;d dkjZokbZ;ka iw.kZ djus ds
mijkar ls vc vkns”k ikfjr dj jgk gwWaA okn dks yafcr j[kus esa
esjh vFkok iwoZ inkf/kdkfj;ksa dh dksbZ xyr ea”kk ugha jgh gSA
bl okn esa ek= Hkw/kkjh ds vkifÙk;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vkns”k ikfjr
fd;k tk ldrk Fkk] fdarq ;g U;kf;d n`f’Vdks.k ls lgh ugh
gksrkA eSus bl okn esa Hkwgncanh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&10¼2½ ds
izk:i izdk”ku ds fo:) Hkw/kkjh ,oa fofHkUu nLrkost /kkjd
¼tks&tks mifLFkr gq,½ ds }kjk nkf[ky vkifÙk;ksa dk voyksdu
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
18/51
fd;k ,oa muds i{kksa dks dbZ frfFk;ksa dks foLr`r :i ls Hkh
lqukA fnukad&22-01-2019 dks varrksxRok bl okn esa /kkjk 10¼3½
ds rgr lquokbZ iw.kZ gqbZA tks mifLFkr ugha gks lds] mUgsa
mifLFkr jgus gsrq uksfVl ¼vke oks [kkl½ tkjh fd;k ,oa lwpuk
dk izdk”ku nSfud lekpkj i=ksa lfgr ftyk ds osclkbZV ij Hkh
djk;kA
mijksDr foosfpr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij f”koukFk
pkS/kjh dks jdck 03 dB~Bk 08 /kwj Hkwfe ,osa jktsUnz egrks dks
dqy jdck 06 dB~Bk 10 /kwj Hkwfe] dqy 09 dB~Bk 18 /kwj vFkok
0-15,dM+ Hkwfe dh NwV Lohd`r djus ds mijkar] Hkw/kkjh }kjk
/kkfjr dqy tehu 2136-99 ,dM+ gksrk gSA blesa Hkw/kkjh dks prqFkZ
Js.kh dh 30-00 ,dM+ Hkwfe ifjokj esa /kkj.k djus dh NwV nsdj
“ks’k 2106-99 ,dM+ Hkwfe vf/k”ks’k ?kksf’kr dh tkrh gSA rnuqlkj
/kkjk&11¼1½ ds rgr vafre izdk”ku dh fooj.kh rS;kj dj “kh?kz
izLrqr djsaA
fnukad& 12-02-2019 dks j[ksaA
¼ys[kkfir ,oa la”kksf/kr½
Sd/- Sd/-
lekgrkZ] lekgrkZ
if"pe pEikj.k] csfr;k if"pe pEikj.k] csfr;k
(emphasis added)
18. Aggrieved, the affected parties including the
petitioners moved before the Court of Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 30 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
19/51
2019 (Shatrundam Shahi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. and
analogous cases). The case of the petitioners was numbered
35/2019 (Ashok Kumar Tiwary and Ors. vs. State of Bihar &
Ors.). The Divisional Commissioner took up the matter and
after extensively hearing all the parties and after perusing the
records, vide an order dated 25.04.2022, affirmed the order of
the Collector, West Champaran (Annexure-P/11 to the writ
petition).
19. Paragraphs 110 and 113 to 117 relates to the
petitioners and read as follows:
110. The objection of Shri Ashok Kumar
Tiwary and Satya Prakash Tiwary has been dealt on
page no. 60 of the order while objection of Shri Satya
Prakash Tiwary has been dealt on page 61 of the
order. The Lower Court in both the cases has
observed that the original sale documents of the
vendors have not been submitted and only the
subsequent sale documents have been submitted.
Even in the Appellate Court only documents which
have been submitted is the copy of the rent receipt
issued in favour of Ram Ekbal Tiwary, Yoginath
Tiwary, Satya Prakash Tiwary, Yugal Tiwary. Ilaichi
Devi etc. The Lower Court has quoted the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
20/51
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs.
District Judge, AIR 1979 SC 53 that “It is settled law
that mutation entries are only for the purpose of
enabling the state to collect revenue from the person
in possession but it does not confer any titled to the
land.” The Lower Court has held that the purported
registration by the different vendors is an act done to
thwart the implementation of provisions of the Land
Ceiling Act and has rejected the claim of the
petitioners. In the absence of any sale deed or title
deed the case of the appellants is not proven. Hence
I do not find any reasons to differ with the order of
the Lower Court. The appeal fails to succeed.
(emphasis added)
113. Appeal case no. 35/19 Ashok Kumar
Tiwari and Satya Prakash Tiwari and Bipul Kumar
Tiwari Vs. State of Bihar has been filed against the
order of the Lower Court dated 22.01.2019. The
claim of the petitioners is that the mother of
appellant 1 and 2 and grandmother of appellant 3
Sushila Devi had acquired 6 Bigha 10 Kattha 10
Dhur of land in Village -Semera bearing Khata No.
3, Khesara No. 384, 385 and 386 through a
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
21/51
registered sale deed dated 23.06.1970 executed by
Kumar Ranvijay Shahi who had power of attorney of
Shri Ashok Kumar Singh S/o Late Panna Lal Jee and
thereafter got possession of the said land. Shri Panna
Lal Jee was recorded tenant of land along with other
lands and his name was entered in Unchal
Jamabandi. After purchase Sushila Devi got her
name in mutated Unchal and behind to pay rent to
the State of Bihar. The claim of the petitioner is that
neither Shatrumardan Shahi nor Ajay Kumar Shahi
nor Ranvijay Shahi (the three land lords) were raiyat
of the aforesaid land. He has also submitted that
Shatrumardan Shahi was the ex-land lord who had
settled an area of 158 acres 54 dismil to Kumar
Panna Jee @ Panna Lal Jee according jamabandi
was created in the name of Kumar Panna Jee and
also jamabandi return was submitted by ex-land lord
in the name of Kumar Panna Jee against whose
name Jamabandi was then created in the Unchal.
Hence the appellants have objected to their land
being included in the final publication done by
Collector, West Champaran.”
114. In Support of the claim the appellant
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
22/51
have submitted copy of three sale deeds all three
dated 23.06.1970 (Deed no. 8233, Deed no. 8235
and Deed no. 8236) done by Kumar Ranvijay Shahi
in Favour of Sushila Devi as well as copies of four
rent receipts issued in the name of Sushila Devi
From 1976 to 2007. The appellant was directed to
submit copy of jamabandi return and rent receipt
issued in favour of Panna Jee the original raiyat as
claimed by the appellants. However, they were
unable to do so.
115. The case of Shri Ashok Kumar
Tiwari and others has been dealt by the Lower
Court on page no. 60 and 61 of the order. In the
Lower Court both Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari and
Satya Prakash Tiwari have failed to submit any rent
receipt issued in the name of Sushila Devi as well
as they have failed to submit documents supporting
ownership of Shri Panna Jee. The Lower Court has
observed the act registration has been done in order
to affect the implementation of Land Ceiling Act
and has rejected their objection. It is clear from the
statement of facts that registration has been done
on 23.06.1970 and it comes under the purview of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
23/51
the inquiry of Collector U/s 5 of the Act. The
appellants were unable to produce the proof of
ownership of the land by Shri Panna Lal Jee as
they were neither able to produce any settlement
patta by the acts ex-land lord Shri Shatrumardan
Shahi (the land holder in this case) the copy of
jamindari return submitted by Shri Panna Lal Jee
or the rent receipt issued in the name of Shri Panna
Lal Jee. Further they were unable to clarify by Shri
Ranvijay Shahi, the son of the land holder, sold the
land to Smt. Sushila Devi when Shri Panna Lal Jee
was alive nor were then able to produce the power
of attorney by Shri Panna Lal Jee to Shri Ranvijay
Shahi. The chain of events make it clear that the
land belong to the land holder (ex-land lord Shri
Shatrumardan Shahi) and his son Shri Ranvijay
Shahi sold the land by creating a fake intermediary
Shri Panna Lal Jee. It is interesting to note that in
all the documents the permission of Collector has
not been taken and it is mentioned in the document
that as per BT Act Section 49(g) there is no need to
take permission (from the Collector). Further, in
the absence of right to sell the land, as the land
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
24/51
belong to Shri Shatrumardan Shahi the land holder
in ceiling case no. 60/1973-74 and not to his son
Ranvijay Shahi, the land holder in ceiling case no.
79/1973-74 the vendors right to sell the land is not
established. I agree with the observation of the
lower court that the act of registration and land
transfer was done with the object of defeating and
in contravention of the provisions of the Act and
hence the transfer is invalid. Hence this appeal fails
to succeed.
(emphasis added)
116. The case of the biggest land ceiling
proceeding in Bihar has gone on for the past 48
years having started in 1973-74. The tale is of
unregistered sometimes non existant Pattas, non
existant claims of “registered sale deeds” and rent
receipts and blatant claims unbacked by documents
as evident from the documentation above. To ferret
out the facts from this complicated web is a very
difficult exercise after an elapse of 45 years and
the Collector West Champaran has done a rigorous
examination and produced 123 pages long order.
This order must be read along with the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
25/51
Collector West Champaran dated 22.01.2019.
117. To sum up, the order of Collector,
West Champaran, Bettiah dated 22.01.2019 is
upheld with the following modifications:
(i) Final publication, should be done
after incorporating the changes directed in the
Para 11 and 12 of this order regarding
enumeration of cases as per partition deed and
regarding inclusion of Banami lands against the
person who is having possession over the land.
(ii) Further, the three family deities
should be considered as three separate land
holders and allocated land to the extent provided
in the partition decree and the three public trusts
should be registered under Bihar Hindu Religious
Trusts Act, 1950.
(iii) Further, the issue of residential land
should be decided as per Para 17 of this order.
(iv) Land Ceiling Appeal no. 57/19
Dumaria Joint Agriculture Cooperative should be
decided as per Para 21 and 22 of the order.
(v) Appeal case no. 50/19 and Appeal
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
26/51case no. 43/19 Indra Kumari Devi vs. State of
Bihar and Appeal case no. 49/19 Padma Kumari
Devi vs. State of Bihar should be decided in the
light of direction given in Para 30 of the order.
(vi) Appeal case no. 82/19 Minakshi
Singh vs. State of Bihar should be decided as per
direction in Para no. 41 of the order.
(vii) Appeal case no.74/19 Janmejay
Dhawaj Singh should be decided as per direction
in Para 64 of the order.
(viii) Appeal case no. 42/19 Indradev
Dubey and others vs. State of Bihar should be
decided as per direction in Para 66 of the order.
(ix) Appeal case no. 112/19 Bihari Kurmi
vs. State of Bihar should be decided as per
direction in Para 69 of the order.
(x) Appeal case no. 65/19 Bandhu Dubey
and others vs. State of Bihar should be decided as
per direction in Para 85 of the order.
(xi) Appeal case no. 81/19 Sudama
Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar has been
partially allowed and should be decided as per
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
27/51direction in Para 90 of the order.
With these modifications the order of
Collector. West Champaran, Bettiah in Ceiling
case no. 60/1973-74 is upheld and his directed to
proceed with the further course of action. All other
appeals in the case have already been dismissed as
specified in the respective paragraphs.”
Dictated and Corrected
Sd/- Illegible
25.04.2022
(Mihir Kumar Singh)
Commissioner,
Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur
20. Still aggrieved, the petitioners chose to approach
the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna individually and their case
came to be registered as Surplus Case No. 16 of 2022 [West
Champaran (Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Others vs. The State
of Bihar & Others)].
21. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board of
Revenue, Bihar took up the matter and vide an order dated
05.12.2024 and vide a reasoned order, the revision petition was
rejected with a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-. (Annexure P/12 to the
writ petition).
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
28/51
22. The order dated 05.12.2024 stands incorporated
hereinbelow:-
“This Revision Petition was filed on 30th
September 2022 against the order passed by the
Learned Divisional Commissioner. Tirhut on 25th
Apr 2022 in Land Ceiling Appeal no. 35/2019. The
pleadings were completed and the matter was
finally heard on 18th November 2024.
As per the learned Advocate of the
Revisionist, the total land involved is about 06
bigha 10 Katha and 10 dhur. The Learned
Advocate of the Revisionist mentioned that the land
in question was settled to Shri Panna Ji in 1948 by
Shri Shatru Mardhan Shahi, who was the original
Landlord. The land was mutated in the name of
Shri Panna Ji. He draws the attention of this Court
to page 31 of the Revision Petition. After the death
of Shri Panna Ji, his son Shri Ashok Kumar Singh
gave the Power of Attorney to Shri Ran Vijay
Shahi. Based on that Power of Attorney, Shri Ran
Vijay Shahi sold the land in question on 23rd June
1970 to Smt. Sushila Devi (Mother of Revisionist 1
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
29/51& 2 and Grandmother of Revisionist 3). He further
mentions that the land in question was mutated in
favour of Smt. Sushila Devi (Mutation Case No.
337/1994-95). Since then, Smt. Sushila Devi has
been paying the rent. The Learned Advocate
further mentioned that all the sale deeds are
enclosed at Annexure II of the Revision
Application. He also mentions the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court which says that the
Revenue Authorities cannot question a sale deed
executed prior to cut off date i.e. 22nd October
1959. He also added that as per page 31 of the
Revision Application, the land belongs to Shri
Panna Ji in 1948. The Revenue Authorities cannot
reopen this issue now. The Learned Lower Courts
have ignored this fact.
The Learned Special Government
Pleader in his argument mentioned that the
Learned Collector has considered this aspect
which can be clearly seen from page 105 of the
Revision Application, which is the portion of the
Learned Collector order regarding this Revisionist.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
30/51The case was also considered by the Learned
Commissioner at page 251 of Revision Application,
which is the relevant portion of the order of the
Learned Commissioner regarding this Revisionist.
The learned Special Government Pleader further
argued that mutation, per se, is not a right of
ownership.
Having heard both the parties and
having perused the relevant documents, the
following facts emerge: –
i. The Learned Advocate of the
Revisionist says that the land was sold by the
original Landlord to one Shri Panna Ji in 1948.
In the support, he has not enclosed any sale deed
of 1948. The only evidence (which is at page 31 of
his Revision Application) is a vague reply given
by the Circle Officer, Bagaha on 14th February
2015 (in a response to an RTI application). Even
this reply only says that ‘the Jamabandi was
continuing in the name of Shri Panna Ji since the
abolition of Zamindari’. The letter of the Circle
Officer indicated no date as to where the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
31/51Jamabandi started. Therefore, this evidence is not
indicative as to how Shri Panna Ji came to own
the said land.
ii. It is an admitted fact that merely
possessing rent receipts is not evidence of
ownership. Therefore, the Revisionist have failed to
prove that the land was owned by Shri Panna Ji in
1948.
iii. The oldest rent receipt that the
Revisionist could produce was of the year 1976-77
issued in the name of Shri Panna Ji. There is no
rent receipt in the name of Shri Panna Ji before
1976-77 or after that date. If the land was in the
ownership of Shri Panna Ji in 1948, the gap of 30
years (of missing rent receipts) is too big to be
ignored.
iv. Coming to the next point, it is
interesting to note that the Revisionist’s Mother
bought the land from Shri Ran Vijay Shahi in the
year 1970. But She took 25 long years to get the
mutation done in 1994. This delay is also
suspicious and cannot be ignored.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
32/51v. Another weakness in the argument is
the Revisionist agrees that the Power of Attorney
(executed by Shri Ashok Singh in favour of Shri
Ran Vijay Shahi) is not enclosed in their
application. Nor even a date is indicated as to
when this Power of Attorney was given.
Therefore, the Power of Attorney appears to be an
eye wash meant to hoodwink the Revenue
Authorities.
vi. The sale deed of 1970 in favour of
the Revisionist’s Mother is the oldest document
that was submitted by the Revisionist in this
proceeding. Now this document too is dated 23rd
June 1970, which is much later than the cut-off
date viz. 22nd October 1959 as per Section 5 (1)
(iii) of the Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961.
vii. It is interesting to note that the
Landlord ‘sold’ the land to Shri Panna Ji, whose
son gave Power of Attorney back to the son of the
Landlord. It may be noted that Shri Ran Vijay
Shahi is the son of Shri Shatru Mardhan Shahi.
This point is adequately indicated by the Learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
33/51
Commissioner in para 115 of his Order dated 25th
April 2022.
viii. It is intriguing as to why Shri Ran
Vijay Shahi sold the land to the Revisionist’s
Mother when Shri Panna Ji was still alive.
ix. The above therefore clearly indicates
that the entire business of the so called ‘sale’ by
Landlord in 1948 and then the subsequent Power
of Attorney back to his son, is a case of ’round
tripping’ of the land parcel with a clear intention
of hoodwinking the Revenue Authorities and
concealing the Surplus land form Ceiling Act.”
Conclusion:-
At the outset, I must appreciate the
comprehensive order dated 22nd January 2019
passed by the Learned Collector. West Champaran.
It is a comprehensive order dealing with the entire
journey of 50 years of this Ceiling Case. The
Learned Collector has passed an order spanning
123 pages and has quoted extensively the
desperation of the Landlord in keeping the matter
alive and approaching various Courts/Fora again
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
34/51and again. The Learned Collector has dealt on the
issue affecting various ‘interested parties’ and have
dealt the objections/concerns of each of them in
detail.
Similarly, this Court appreciates the
detail and depth with which the Learned
Commissioner has disposed of the appeals. The
Learned Commissioner’s Order dated 25th April
2022 is an 82-page order discussing the merits of
each of the parties and has dealt the same in
accordance with the Law. It is seldom that this
Court sees such detailed and comprehensive orders
passed by the Revenue Authorities particularly the
Learned Commissioners and Learned Collectors.
I tend to agree with both the Learned
Collector and the Learned Commissioner that the
Landlord has gone to desperate lengths to keep this
Land Ceiling Case alive, 50 years of which have
already been passed. By generating proxy
litigation (from more than 3 dozen
persons/transferees) on the same Ceiling Case
(Land Ceiling Case No. 60/1973-74), the Landlord
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
35/51
has been successful in avoiding the law and
inundating the Revenue Authorities with
innumerable litigations.
The said Land Ceiling Case No. 60/1973
may be rightly called the Mother of all Ceiling
Cases’ and has seen the Courts of the Learned
Collector, the Learned Commissioner, the Board of
Revenue, the Bihar Land Tribunal and the Hon’ble
High Court many times before. The total land
involved in the slew of litigations is 2137 acres as
per the notification under Section 10 (2) of the Act.
Thus, the stakes of the Landlord were quite high.
He and his successors have been successful in
keeping the litigation alive right from the Learned
Collector upto the Hon’ble High Court. At least
thrice, this Ceiling Case has seen the doors of
Hon’ble High Court and each time the matter was
remanded back to the Collector. The Landlord
again went up to the Commissioner and to the
Board of Revenue.
Thus, the Landlord has, in cooperation
with various stake holders and ‘transferees’ like
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
36/51
the Revisionist in this case, kept the litigation
alive and is not letting it die in the last 50 years.
The Landlord ensures that there are as many
stake holders as possible. In the original Land
Ceiling Case, he arranged to file 21 returns with
an intention to complicate the whole Land Ceiling
Case. As per the order of the Learned Collector,
the then Learned Additional Collector had
inquired and found all these 21 returns were filed
by the individuals who are either fake or benami.
In addition to these 21, there are 12 other persons
(on paper) whose land is actually in possession of
the Landlord.
Where an order is passed by the
Learned Collector in compliance to the order of
the Hon’ble High Court, the aggrieved party (the
Landlord) seizes this opportunity and throws the
matter in the never-ending cycle of going through
the Learned Commissioner, Board of Revenue,
Bihar Land Tribunal and then finally again to
Hon’ble High Court. This endless cycle is a
deliberate strategy adopted often by the Landlords
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
37/51
who play merry-go-round with the land Ceiling
Cases.
Coming to the instant case, it is clear
that the Revisionist has not been able to produce
any document whatsoever before the cut-off date
of 22nd October 1959. Moreover, the Power of
Attorney is also not enclosed by which the sale
deed of 1970 was executed. The Revisionist has
not submitted one document to justify his Case in
Appellate/Revisional Fora. In the absence of the
said documents, it appears that this is a clear case
of hiding the Surplus land from the Authorities.
As such I find that the order dated 25th April
2022 passed by the Learned Commissioner, Tirhut
in Land Ceiling Appeal No. 30/2019 is in order
and the same is hereby affirmed to the extent it
applies to the Revisionist.
That be the case. I find that the instant
matter is totally frivolous and is an attempt to
burden the Revenue Courts with needless
litigation. It may be worthwhile to note that there
are about 39 such people/transferees who are
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
38/51
involved in the Ceiling Case, most of which are
acting as a proxy off the original Landlord. Time
has come to put an end to this endless chain of
litigation. Time has also come to impose cost on
such petitioners for wasting the time of officers
dealing with Revenue matters. Accordingly, in
terms of powers mentioned in Section 33 (d). I
impose a cost of Rs. One Lakh on the Petitioner
and the same should be deposited with the Board
of Revenue in 15 days.
The learned Collector is directed to
proceed further in terms of his order dated 22nd
January, 2019 in Land Ceiling Case No. 60/1973-
74 and take further action as per the Land
Ceiling Act, 1961.
Revision Dismissed with Costs.”
Dictated and Corrected
Sd/- Illegible Sd/- Illegible
5/12/2024
(K.K Pathak) (K.K. Pathak)
Chairman-Cum-Member Chairman-Cum-Member
Board of Revenue, Bihar Board of Revenue, Bihar
(emphasis added)
23. The petitioners thereafter approached the Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
39/51
Land Tribunal (henceforth for short ‘the Tribunal’) in BLT Case
no. 1111 of 2024 (Ashok Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State
of Bihar & Ors.).
24. ‘The Tribunal’ took up the matter on 20.12.2024
and having taken note of the orders passed by the Collector,
West Champaran, the Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur as also the Board of Revenue, Bihar, came to the
conclusion that no interference is required. It thus affirmed the
orders. However, ‘the Tribunal’ set aside the cost of Rs.
1,00,000/- imposed against the petitioners.
25. Paragraph-15 onwards of the order dated
20.12.2024 read as follows:
“15. This Tribunal on perusing the order
passed by appellate court as well as Chairman-
cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna finds
that it has been mentioned in both the orders that
these petitioners were unable to produce the proof
of ownership of land by Panna Ji. Neither Panna Ji
nor his descendants or the petitioner produced any
Settlement Patta executed by Shatrumardhan Shahi
( original landholder) in favour of Pannaji in the
year 1948. The power of Attorney executed in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
40/51favour of Ranvijay Sahi by Ashok Singh son of
Panna Ji was not produced before the Court below.
16. Counsel for petitioner submits that at
the time of execution of power of Attorney in
favour of Ranvijay Sahi by son of Panna Ji, Panna
Ji had already died.
17. The learned Chairman-cum-Member,
Board of Revenue. Bihar, Patna has held in the
impugned order that petitioner has not enclosed
any settlement paper of year 1948. The information
received under right to Information Act is only
evidence produced by petitioner.
18. It is mentioned in the reply given by
Circle Officer under R.T.I Act that Jamabandi was
continuing in the name of Shri Panna Ji since the
abolition of Jamindari and rent receipt was also
issued in his favour. The Chairman-cum-Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has held in the
order that oldest rent receipt produced by
petitioner in the name of Pannaji was of the year
1976-77, There is no rent receipt in the name of
Shri Panna Ji before 1976-77 or after that date,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
41/51
19. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board
of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has taken into
consideration that if the land was under ownership
of Panna Ji since 1948, gap of 30 years of missing
rent receipt is too big to be ignored. It is also
mentioned in order of learned Chairman-cum-
Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna that
mutation of the land in question was done in favour
of petitioner in the year 1994 after 25 years of
execution of sale deed dated 23.06.1970 executed
in favour of mother and grandmother of petitioner.
Such long delay in filing the mutation petition can
not be ignored and the mutation petition filed by
the petitioner becomes suspicious.
20. It is also mentioned in the order of
learned Chairman-cum-Member, Board of
Revenue, Bihar, Patna that power of Attorncy
(executed by Shri Ashok Singh in favour of Shri
Ranvijay Shahi) is not enclosed either before him
or before court below. Nor even a date has been
indicated as to when this power of Attorney was
given. Therefore, the Power of Attorney also
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
42/51become suspicious.
21. The Sale Deed executed in favour of
mother of petitioner of the year 1970 was the
oldest document submitted by the revisionist before
the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue,
Bihar, Patna. The aforesaid document was dated
23rd June, 1970, which was much later than the
cut off date viz. 22 October, 1959 as per Section 5
(1) (iii) of Bihar Land Ceiling Act, 1961.
22. It is submitted in the order of learned
Member Board of Revenue that petitioner was
unable to produce the document of ownership of
the land by Sri Panna Ji. The petitioners were not
able to provide any settlement paper executed by
landlord Shri Shatrumardhan Sahi in favour of
Panna Ji. The copy of Jamabandi return filed by
ex-landlord in favour of Panna Ji was not
produced
23. The learned Chairman-cum-Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has noted in the
order that Ranvijay Sahi sold the land to the
revisionist’s mother and grandmother when Shri
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
43/51Panna Ji was still alive. This fact is however
denied by the counsel for petitioner.
24. The Chairman-cum-Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna after
considering the case of the parties held that
entire issues of Settlement by landlord in the year
1948 in the name of Panna Lal Jee and
subsequent sale of land by his son Ranvijay Sahi
on the basis of Power of Attorney executed by
son of Panna Lal Jee (Ashok Kumar Singh) in
his favour make it clear that son of landlord
Ranvijay Sahi sold the land to Sushila Devi by
creating fake intermediary Shri Panna Ji. The
petitioner did not produce the Power of Attorney
executed by son of Panna Lal Ji to Ranvijay
Sahi.
25. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board
of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has imposed fine of Rs.
One lakh to the petitioner to be deposited in the
office of Board of Revenue in 15 days.
26. This Tribunal on the basis of
finding given by the Chairman-cum-Member,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
44/51
Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in order dated
25.04.2022 passed in Surplus Case No. 16 of
2022 does not find any illegality in the same. The
aforesaid finding is accordingly upheld and
affirmed.
27. However, the part of the order dated
05.12.2024 passed by learned Chairman-cum-
Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in
Surplus Case No. 16 of 2022 directing the
petitioner to deposit fine of Rs. One Lakh in the
office of Board of Revenue within 15 days is
arbitrary and not in accordance with law.
Therefore, that part of the order is hereby set
aside.
This application is accordingly disposed
off as ordered above.”
(emphasis added)
Sd/-Illegible
(Sanjay Priya)
Chairman
The Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna
Dated 20th of December, 2024
Vishal
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
45/51
26. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present
writ petition has been filed by the petitioners.
(C) Submissions:
27. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
land originally belonged to Satrumardan Shahi which was
settled in favour of Panna Ji in the year 1948. He, however,
concede that save and except the statement/submission, there is
nothing on record/no chit of paper to substantiate the said claim.
28. He next submits that Ashok Singh, son of Panna Ji
later gave Power of Attorney to son of Shatrumardan Shahi
namely, Ran Vijay Shahi who in turn sold the land to the mother
of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on 23.06.1970.
29. However, once again, learned counsel was unable
to support the said contention on the query put forward by the
court:
“(i) whether Pannaji was dead on the date his
son, Ashok Singh gave power of the attorney to the Ran
Vijay Shahi, son of the original land holder,
Shatrumardan Shahi;
(ii) the date/month/year when the power of
attorney was extended by Ashok Singh on favour of Ran
Vijay Shahi;
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
46/51
(iii) the Power of Attorney papers.”
30. Learned counsel for the petitioners continued with
his argument submitting that pursuant to the sale deed executed
in the year 1970, the rent receipt was issued in the name of late
Sushila Devi in the year 1994-95. Again, upon query, when the
sale deed was executed in the year 1970, why it took 25 years
for the petitioners family to take steps in moving before the
Revenue authorities, there is no answer.
31. Learned counsel submits that it was a valid
transaction from the Attorney holder, Ran Vijay Shahi and in
that background, when the rent receipt was issued in favour of
late Sushila Devi, though in the year 1994-95, they were entitled
for relief.
32. Learned counsel for the petitioners next submit
that the land was transferred to Pannaji in the year 1948 i.e.
prior to 22.10.1959 and as such, the successive authority/Courts
wrongly held the transaction to be ‘farzi’ and for the purpose of
defeating the ceiling proceeding initiated against the original
land holder, Shatrumardan Shahi. He concludes by submitting
that the orders are thus liable to be set aside.
33. Learned State counsel on the other hand submits
that there is not a single document on record to support the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
47/51
contention nor they were able to produce any such document
before the authorities/Court to show the transfer of land prior to
1959 and/or its transfer to Pannaji. The submission is that the
first document on record is the sale deed executed by Ran Vijay
Shahi, son of the original land holder, Shatrumardan Shahi on
23.06.1970 and in absence of any details/documents/alleged
transfer of land of Pannaji and subsequent Power of Attorney, it
was clearly a ploy by the original land holder to save the land
from the land ceiling proceeding by putting forward these ‘farzi’
transactions. Thus the writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
(D) FINDINGS:
34. Having gone through the facts of the case, the
materials on record as also the submissions of the parties, the
questions that need to be answered is/are:
“(i) whether the petitioners were able to prove
before the authorities/Courts about the genuine transfer
of land from the original land-holder, Shatrumardan
Shahi in favour of one Pannaji in the year 1948;
(ii) whether Pannaji was dead when his son,
Ashok Singh gave Power of Attorney to Ran Vijay
Shahi, the son of the original land holder,
Shatrumardan Shahi;
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
48/51
(iii) whether any document of alleged transfer
of land to Pannaji and the Power of Power of Attorney
were brought on record by the petitioners to prove their
bona fide;
(iv) whether (and if the answers to all the
three aforesaid questions are in negative), the
authorities/Courts erred in coming to the conclusion
that the petitioners utterly failed to prove the case and it
was a ‘farzi’ transaction by the original landholder to
save the land.”
35. This Court has taken note of the consistent stand
of the authorities/Courts that the petitioners, save and except the
statements made to show their bonafide have failed to provide
any document to support the claim put forward by them. The
first document is the sale deed dated 23.06.1970 (not
brought/annexed with the writ petition) followed by rent receipt
issued 25 years later in the year 1994-95.
36. It is surprising that though the litigation is
continuing for last five decades and the matter has traveled from
the Collector, West Champaran to the Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur, then to Board of Revenue, Bihar and
finally before ‘the Tribunal’; the petitioners have no supporting
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
49/51
document to prove their case. Even in this voluminous writ
petition, the petitioners are unable to complete the chain.
37. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners
have failed at the initial stage itself in completing the chain of:
“(i) alleged transfer of land from the land
holder to Pannaji in the year 1948;
(ii) Subsequent Power of Attorney by his son,
Ashok Singh to Ran Vijay Shahi;
(iii) thus, the subsequent transfer of lands to
the petitioners’ mother/grandmother comes within
‘farzi’ category transaction.”
38. This Court is in full agreement with the
observations of the Collector, West Champaran, the
Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur as also the Board
of Revenue, Bihar that the story of land transfer was created
with the object of defeating the provisions of ‘the Act’ by the
original land holder Shatrumardan Shahi.
39. Having gone through the facts of the case, the
materials on record and the orders passed by the different
Revenue authorities, ‘the BLT’ as recorded above, this Court
holds that the conclusion arrived at by them are reasoned one
and need no interference when the wheels of the entire story got
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
50/51
stuck at the initial stage itself.
40. Thus the answers to the questions formulated by
the Court is/are answered as under:
“(i) there is not a single chit of paper with the
petitioners to show the transfer of lands to Pannaji by
the original landholder, Shatrumardan Shahi;
(ii) the petitioners utterly failed to provide any
information about the status of Pannaji (whether he
was dead or alive) when his son, Ashok Singh allegedly
issued Power of Attorney in favour of Ran Vijay Shahi,
the son of the original landholder, Shatrumardan
Shahi;
(iii) the Power of Attorney is not on record nor
the petitioners have been able to provide the
date/month/year of execution of Power of Attorney;
(iv) as the chain of events is/are incomplete,
the authorities/Courts were fully justified in negating
the claim of the petitioners by holding that it was a
‘farzi’ transaction on behalf of the original landholder.”
41. Before parting, this Court would like to put on
record its word of appreciation for the revenue
authorities/Courts in taking pains and elaborating the entire facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.10787 of 2025 dt.10-07-2025
51/51
which culminated into the rejection of the claim.
42. Time has now come to lower the curtains on the
entire story. The writ petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.
25,000/- to be paid by the three petitioners within a period of
four weeks to the Bihar State Legal Services Authority. Failure
to do so, steps to be taken for the realization of the amount in
accordance with law.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 15.07.2025 Transmission Date NA
